LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

GIFT  OF 

Received  (Uc^jr.  ,  i$9fr.  • 

Accession  No.  y^Jl) 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/feesysteminuniteOOurdarich 


THE  FEE  SYSTEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BY 

THOMAS  K.  URDAHL,  Ph.  D. 


Part    I. — Historical  Review  of  Fee  Systems. 

Part  II. — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


Ph.D.  thesis,  University  of  Wisconsin,  1897. 
Compliments  of  th*  Librarian. 


MADISON,  WIS.: 

DEMOCRAT   PRINTING  COMPANY,    PRINTER, 
1898. 


THE  FEE  SYSTEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BY 


THOMAS  K.  UEDAHL,  Ph.  D. 
n 


Part    I. — Historical  Review  of  Fee  Systems. 

Part  II. —  The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States, 


Reprinted  from  the  Transactions  of  the  Wisconsin  Academy  of  Sciences, 
Arts,  and  Letters,  Vol.  XII. 


MADISON,  WIS.: 
democrat  printing  company,  printer, 

1898. 


#$ 


OuX 'ft 


THE  FEE  SYSTEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


TABLE  OP  CONTENTS. 

PART  I.     HISTORICAL  REVIEW. 

CHAPTER  I.—  Theory  of  Fees.  page. 

Definitions  and  Interpretation  by  Writers  on  Finance.— KM 
shades  of  opinion;  from  Bastable  who  denies  the  existence 
of  fees  as  a  separate  category,  to  Schaeffle  who  would  in- 
clude many  taxes  under  this  heading.—  Points  of  similarity.        49 

A.  Benefit,  or  Service,    as  a  Factor  in  Public  Payments. — 

Benefit  at  first  the  controlling  factor  in  all  public  charges. — 
Doctrine  of  equivalents  applied  in  the  United  States  to  but 
two  classes  of  revenues:    1.  Special  assessments;  2.  Fees..        54 

B.  Fees  Distinguished  from    Tor  .res. —  Relation  of  fees  to  the 

cost  of  services  rendered. —  A  fee  is  a  counter-payment 
for  a  service  or  privilege. —  It  becomes  a  tax  when  it  exceeds 
the  value  of  the  service  or  benefit  conferred 54 

C.  License  Fees. —  Nature  of    license  charges. —  Incidence  of 

license  charges. —  High  liquor  licenses  not  necessarily  taxes.        57 

D.  License  Fees  Distinguished  from  Special  Taxes 59 

F.  Fees  Distinguished  from  Special  Assessments. —  Simi- 
larities and  Differences. —  Professor  Neumann's  contention 
regarding  fees. —  The  practical  distinction  between  fees  and 
taxes 60 

F.  Public  Purpose  in  Fees.—  Justification  of  fees.— Public 
welfare  and  the  institution  which  yields  the  service. —  Con- 
siderations which  should  govern  the  imposition  of  fee-pay- 
ments.—  Tendency  of  institutions  to  pass  through  the  fee- 
collecting  stage  and  become  free  public  agencies 62 

O.  Method  of  Collecting  Fees. —  Directly  through  public  offi- 
cials.—  Indirectly  by  means  of  stamps 65 


iv  Urdahl — The  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

CHAPTER  II.— General  Survey    of   the  Fee  System  in    An- 
cient and  Mediaeval  Europe.  page. 
Importance  of  European  fee  systems  to  a  study  of  the  fee  system  in 

the  United  States 67 

A.  Greece. —  Court    fees:     prytania,   epobilia,    parastasia, 

paractabole. —  Port  and  harbor  fees. —  Warehouse  and 
wharfage  fees. —  Market  fees 67 

B.  Rome. —  Fees  developed  late.  —  Causes. —  Temple    fees  and 

court  fees,  the  earliest. —  Sacrementa. —  Municipal  and  ad- 
ministrative fees. —  Fees  for  market  privileges. —  Tributes. — 
License  fees. —  State  postal  service 6£ 

C.  Period   of   Charlemagne. —  Development  of  toll  system. — 

Market  fees.  —  Sehutzgeld.  —  Fees  from  Jews.  —  Court 
fees. —  The  Missi,  or  representatives  of  Charlemagne,  their 
fees  and  privileges.—  Origin  of  clerks  of  court  and  recorders' 
fees. —  Fees  for  the  use  of  harbors,  dykes,  rivers,  and  roads.        71 

D.  The   Transition  from  Mediaeval  to  Modern  European 

Fees. —  Result  of  the  disintegration  of  Charlemagne's  em-  ■ 
pire. —  Development  of  the  regalia  of  temporal  sovereigns. — 
Fees  from  foreigners:  for  use  of  scales,  for  permits,  pass- 
ports, privileges,  etc. —  Court  fees.— Fees  collected  by  medi- 
aeval guilds. —  Significance. —  Church  fees,  their  develop- 
ment.—  Fees  for  burials,  masses,  baptisms,  church  rituals 
etc.— Fees  of  the  Holy  See 73 

CHAPTER   III.— Some    Typical   English  Fees;  Their   Origin 
and  Development. 

A.  Liquor  License  Fee. —  Ale-houses  regulated  first.— Fee  for 

registration  of  license. —  Gradual  increase  in  amount. —  New 
methods  of  gauging  the  license  fees. —  Evolution  of  tavern 
license  fees 77 

B.  Peddlers'*  License  Fees. —  Same  changes  as  in  liquor  license 

fees.—  Highest  peddler's  license  charges,  imposed  by  Pitt. .        7& 

C.  Hackney    Coach   Licenses.  —  Origin    of  fee.—  Increase    in 

amount.— New  standards  of  measurement 80 

D.  Other  Licenses  and  Fees.—  Dog  license,  cause  of  its  intro- 

duction.—  Game  licenses.— Fees  for  use  of  harbors,  light- 
houses, bridges,  etc 80 

E.  English  Court,  or  Administration,    Fees.  —  Fees  gauged 

by  the  length  of  the  legal  instrument. —  Fee  system  ex- 
tended.—  Relation  of  court  fees  to  administration  of  justice 
in   England 81 

F.  Conclusion 82 


Table  of  Contents.  y 

CHAPTER  IV.— The  French  Fee  System. 
Special  Significance  of  the  French  fee  system.  page* 

A.  Droits    cV Enregistrement. —  History   of  registration  fees. — 

Origin. —  Purpose. —  Extortions  practiced. —  Modern  fixed 
and  proportional  registration  fees. —  Revenue  derived  from 
this  source. —  Fees  for  state  seal 83 

B.  French  License  Fees. — Origin. —  Purposes.— Occupations  li- 

censed.—  Fee;  how  gauged 8(> 

C.  Droits  de   Visite.    Drogue   et  Epice.—  Inspection  of  drug 

stores  and  spice  shops. —  Fees  for  same. —  Legislation  in 
force  at  present 89 

D.  Inspection  of  Mineral  Waters 89 

E.  Verification  of    Weights  and  Measures. —  Significance. — 

System  of  inspection  fees 90 

F.  Droits     de     Garantie. —  Compulsory      assay    of     precious 

metals. —  Fees  for  same. —  How  measured 90 

G.  Postal  Fees. —  History. —  Changes  in  the  tariff  of  fees. — Re- 

lation to  the  amount  of  revenue  obtained. —  Post  office  as  an 

instrument  of  taxation 90 

H.  School  Fees. —  University  fees. —  Examination  fees. —  Other 

fees 92 

/.  Peages. —  History    of    road  and   water  tolls. —  Extortions. — 

Abolition.—  Modern   equivalents 92 

J.  Patent  Fees. —  Origin. —  Development. —  Justification.— Re- 
ceipts          93 

K.  Droits  de   Voirie.—  Importance  of  fees  for  permits  to  erect 

structures  in  highways,  water  courses,  etc 94 

L.  Permis  de  Chasse. —  Administrative  machinery'  of  the  state 

and  revenue  from  fees 94 

CHAPTER  V. —  Fees  in  the  American  Colonies. 

Colonial  Fees  at  first  the  same  as  those  in  England. —  Con- 
sequences.—  Fees  and  perquisities  of  governors. —  The 
amounts  collected  for  land  patents.—  Illegal  fees  collec- 
ted.—  Laws  against  the  same. —  Fee-collecting  offices  farmed 

out. —  Results 96 

A.  Survival  of  the  Idea  of  Regalia,  or  Royal  Preroga- 
tives.— Distinction  between  colonial  and  later  marriage  li- 

99 


Other  License  Fees  in  the  nature  of  Regalia 


vi  Urdahl — The  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

CHAPTER  V.— continued.  page. 

B.  Colonial  License  Fees. —  Evolution  of  license  legislation.— 

Indian  traders,  tanners,  peddlers,  etc.— Evolution  of  liquor 
license  fee  in  Massachusetts. —  Methods  of  gauging  the 
fee. —  Licenses  in  other  colonies 101 

C.  Colonial  Regulation   of  Fees.—  Regulation  of  ferries,  toll- 

bridges,  toll-roads. —  One  great  reform:  Compulsory  publi- 
cation of  fee  bill. —  Surveyors' fees  very  important. —  Their 
regulation  by  law.— Attorneys'  fees  subject  to  legislative 
enactment 108 

D.  Church  and  School  Fees  in  the   Colonies. —  Church  and 

state  not  completely  separated.—  Church  fees  for  political 
as  well  as  ecclesiastical  duties. —  Colonial  schools  supported 
in  the  same  way. —  Fees  and  higher  educational  institutions.      110 

E.  Colonial  Inspection  Fees. —  Causes,  origin,  and  development 

of  inspection  legislation. —  Purpose  of  the  inspection. —  To- 
bacco in  the  South.—  Beef  and  pork  in  New  York. —  Pot  and 
pearl-ashes  in  all  the  colonies,  etc. —  Significance  of  the  fees.      113 

F.  Miscellaneous  Fees. —  Pilot  fees.— Harbor  fees. —Assessors. — 

Tax  collectors 116 

G.  Colonial   Fees    and   Political    Liberty. —  English    stamp 

taxes,  levied  under  the  guise  of  fees. —  Struggles  with  colo- 
nial governors  over  fees  of  office. —  Significance 118 

H,  General  Characteristics  of  the  Fee  System  in  the  Colo- 
nies        121 

CHAPTER  VI.— Fees   in  the  Early   Commonwealths  (1787  to 
1830). 

A.  General  Tendencies. —  State  intervention  and  regulation  by 

means  of  special  laws. —  No  uniformity  in  the  system  of  the 
several  states  or  of  the  Federal  government 122 

B.  Some  New  License  Fees. — Lotteries,  peddlers,  billiard  tables, 

theaters,  and  others 123 

C.  Differentiation  in  Administrative  Machinery. —  Its  influ- 

ence on  the  fee  system. —  Division  of  labor  in  public  offices.       124 

D.  Relative  Importance  of  Some  of  the  Early  Fees.— Fence 

viewers'  fees,  poundage  fees,  etc 126 

E.  Inspection  Fees. —  Inspection  of  exports:    provisions,  grain, 

lumber,  bark,  pitch,  turpentine,  lumber,  spirits,  etc.— In- 
spection of  weights  and  measures. —  General  purpose  of  in- 
spection laws 126 


Table  of  Contents.  vii 

CHAPTER  VI— continued.  page. 

F.  Regulation  by  Means  of  Licenses.—  Attorneys'  fees  on  ad- 
mission to  the  bar. —  Physicians'  licenses. —  Licenses  to  auc- 
tioneers, pawnbrokers,  retailers,  victuallers,  innkeepers, 
etc. —  Amounts  collected.— American  liquor  licenses,  an 
American  development 128- 

O.  Road  Tolls,  etc.—  Era  of  road,  bridge,  and  canal  building. — 
Regulation  of  tolls.— Result.— Ferry,  bridge,  and  road 
licenses  or  franchises  for  which  fees  are  charged 130 

H.  Tonnage  Duties  in  the  Nature  of  Fees 132 

CHAPTER  VII  —  The  Middle  Period  (1830  to  1865). 

A.  General  Considerations. —  Industrial  revolution  in  the  New 

World. —  Result. —  Growth  of  towns  in  size  and  importance.       13& 

B.  License  Regulations  and  Fees. —  Increase  in  amount  and 

number. — New  standards  of  measurement:  amount  of  stock, 
population  of  municipality,  etc. —  New  pursuits  requiring 
regulation  and  payment  of  license  fee.—  Variations  in  differ- 
ent states 133 

C.  Development  in  Inspection  Fees. —  A  more  elaborate  sys- 

tem.—  More  complex  schedules  of  fees. —  State  export  in- 
spection more  important  than  ever. —  Sealers  of  weights  and 
measures 135 

D.  New  Inspection  Fees. —  Inspection  of  engines,  steamboats, 

etc. —  Causes 136 

•E.  Later  Fees  as  Compared  with  Earlier  Fee  Schedules. — 
Apparent  increase  in  size  of  fees. —  Explanation. — Later 

fees  in  round  numbers. —  Causes 137 

F.  New  Standards  of  Measurement. —  "Folio"  as  defined  by 
different  legislatures. —  Variation  in  different  states. —  Ped- 
dlers' license  fees.—  Liquor  and  billiard  table  licenses 138- 

O.  Incorporation  Fees. —  A  survival  of  the  ancient  regalia. — 
Blackstone's  conception  of  the  word  franchise  as  compared 
with  the  modern  significance. —  Incorporation  privileges  and 
charters.—  Increase  in  amount  of  fees  charged  for  this  priv- 
ilege.—  Development  of  general  incorporation  laws. —  Sig- 
nificance        138 

CHAPTER  VIII.— The  Federal  Fee  System. 
A.  Patent  and  Copyright  Fees. —  Development  and  changes  in 
patent  office  fees. —  Increase  in  the  amount  of  the  old  and 
new  fees  introduced. —  Copyright  fees. —  Changes 141 


viii         Urdahl — The  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

€HAPTER  VHI-continued.  page. 

B.  Custom  House  Fees.—  All  custom  house  officers  paid  by  means 

of  fees  at  first. —  Tonnage  duties. —  Standards  of  measure- 
ment.—  Changes  in  same. —  Attempts  to  change  from  fees 
to  salaries.—  Changes  made  by  the  McKinley  bill 142 

C.  Licenses  to    Vessels. —  Changes  in  amounts  collected  and 

standards  of  measurement.— System  becomes  more  elabor- 
ate.—  Inspectors,  etc.,  paid  salaries 144 

D.  Miscellaneous  Maritime  Fees. —  Wreckers'  and  pilot  license 

fees. —  Shipping  commissioners'  fees 145 

F.  United  States  Court  Fees. — Fees  allowed  deputy  mar- 
shals. —  Salaries  reduced  in  1853.  —  Maximum  salaries  fixed 
in  1878.  —  Recent  changes.  —  All  fees  to  be  accounted  for. . .      145 

F.  Land  Office  Fees.  —  Change  from  fee  to  salary  system  first 
applied  here.  —  Maximum  limit  fixed  by  law.  —  History  of 
changes  in  the  fees.  —  Relation  of  land  office  fees  to  cost  of 
land 146 

O.  Other  Miscellaneous  Fees  of  the  Federal  Government.  — 
Consular  fees.  —  Postmasters'  fees.  —  Fees  in  District  of 
Columbia,  their  development.  —  Excise  license  charges,  not 
fees 147 

CHAPTER  IX. —  The  Evolution  of  the  Fee  System  as  Shown  by 
the  State  and  Federal  Statutes. 

Tendency  to  Change  from  Fee  System  to  Salary  System. — 
Impossibility  of  adjusting  any  fee  system  to  changing  eco- 
nomic conditions. — Political  and  economic  forces  arrayed 
against  change.  —  Line  of  least  resistance.  —  Forces  at 
work  everywhere  which  will  result  in  bringing  all  officers 
to  accept  salaries  in  lieu  of  fees.  —  Another  line  of  investi- 
gation showing  the  same  conclusion 118 

CHAPTER  X.  —The  Evolution  of  the  Fee  System  as  Reflected 
by  the  American  Constitution. 

Constitutions  as  Indices  of  Public  Opinion.  —  Constitutional 
provisions  concerning  illegal  fees.  —  Chancellors  and  judges 
forbidden  to  receive  fees.  —  Other  courts  under  same  inhi- 
bition. —  Governors.  —  State  officers.  —  County  officers  re- 
quired to  account  for  fees  of  office.  —  Other  provisions 150 


Table  of  Contents.  ix 

PART  II.— THE  FEE  SYSTEM  AS  IT  EXISTS  AT  PRESENT 
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  two  most  important  forces  influencing  the  fee  system. —    page. 

1.  The  modern  industrial  development.  2.  Expansion  of 
population  and  resulting  expansion  of  markets 154 

•CHAPTER  I.  —  Modern  Inspection  Fees. 

A.  Inspection    for  Protection  of  Consumer.  —  1.  Oil   inspec- 
tion.—  Variation  in  schedules  of  fees,  — Standards. — Causes. 

2.  Commercial  fertilizers.  3.  Lime,  gas  meters,  baking 
powder,  etc 155 

B.  Inspection  for  Benefit  of  the  Producer. —  A  modern  devel- 

opment.—  Grain  inspection. —  Oleomargarine,  etc. —  Due  to 
expansion  of  population  into  the  West 158 

C.  Inspection  for  Police  Regulation. —  New  purpose  in  the 

inspection  of  hides. —  Inspection  of  steamboats,  vessels, 
mines,  and  buildings. —  Inspection  of  cattle  brought  into  a 
state,  etc 158 

D.  Inspection  of  Weights  and  Measures.—  Of  decreasing  im- 

portance.—  Exceptions 160 

E.  Miscellaneous.—  Produce  inspection  in  Ohio. —  Salmon  in- 

spection in  Oregon. —  Milk  inspection.— Tobacco  inspection. 

—  Municipal  inspection  regulations 160 

'CHAPTER  II.— License  Regulations  and  Fees. 

A.  Marriage  Licenses. —  Importance. —  Nature  of  regulations 

in  the  different  states. —  By  whom  carried  out. —  Amount  of 
fees. —  Variations. —  Success  or  failure  of  restrictions 161 

B.  Liquor  Licenses. —  Experiments  in  license  legislation. —  Li- 

cense-granting authorities:  state,  county,  town,  city. —  Dual 
system. —  General  features.  —  Standards  of  measurement: 
According  to  (1)  population;  (2)  total  annual  sales;  (3)  kind 
of  liquor;  (4)  amount  sold  at  the  time,  etc. — Variations  of 
each  in  different  states. —  Druggists' liquor  licenses. —  Gro- 
cers' liquor  licenses. —  Drift  of  liquor-license  legislation 163 

C.  Peddlers'  Licenses. —  Dual  system.— Fee  charged  by  both 

state  and  local  authorities. —  Other  systems. —  Fees  vary: 
according  to  (1)  amount  of  goods  carried;  (2)  number  of  ani- 
mals used;  (3)  kind  of  vehicle;  (4)  character  of  territory; 
(5)  nature  of  goods  sold. —  General  characteristics 166 


x  Urdahl — The  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

CHAPTER  II,  Part  II— continued.  page. 

D.  Licenses  for    Shows,  Theatres,  etc. —  By  what  authority- 

granted;  state;  local. —  Variations. —  Destination  of  fees  col- 
lected: State  or  local  treasuries. —  Standards  of  measure- 
ment: According  to  fl)  population;  (2)  duration  of  license. — 
Variations  in  amounts  charged  in  different  states 168 

E.  Ferries. —  Transfer  of  power  to  grant  ferry  licenses  from  state 

to  local  authorities. —  Limits  to  amount  of  fees  which  may 
charged. —  Nature  of  the  licenses 170 

F.  Auctioneers''  Licenses.  —  By  whom  issued. —  Variations  in 

amount  of  fees.  —  Standards  of  measurement 170 

O.  Miscellaneous  License  Regulations. —  For  exporting  oys- 
ters.— Oyster  boat  licenses. —  Fishing  licenses.—  Water  craft 
used  in  trade. —  For  selling  fertilizers. —  Detectives'  li- 
censes.—  Grazing  licenses. —  Local  licenses. —  Brokers, 
wharfingers,  hacks,  etc 171 


CHAPTER  III.— Incorporation  Fees. 

Preliminary   requirements. —  Significance. —  General  characteris- 
tics of  incorporation  legislation. —  Results 173 

A.  Charges    for    Incorporation   Privileges. —  Variations    in 

amount. — Fee  proportioned  to  amount  of  stock. —  Length  of 
charter,  etc 174 

B.  Banking  Privileges. — Bank  examiners'  fee. —  Building  and 

loan  associations. —  Charitable  and  educational  associations      176 

C.  Insurance      Companies. —  Importance     of      regulation. — 

Amount  of  fees. — Examination  fees. —  Retaliatory  charges. — 
Fees  paid  by  foreign  insurance  companies 177 

D.  Annual  Fees. —  Anew  development. —  Significance. —  Varia- 

tion in  amount  of  annual  fee 178 

E.  Abuses  connected  with  Insurance  Fees 180 


CHAPTER  IV.— Examination  Fees. 

General  drift  of  legislation. — Causes. —  Certificates.—  Occupations 
and  pursuits  for  which  required. —  Fees  for  examinations. — 
To  whom  paid. —  For  what  purpose, —  Variations 181 


Table  of  Contents.  xi 

CHAPTER  V.    Court  Fees.  page. 

System  antiquated    184. 

A.  Registration  Fees. —  Forces  tending  to  prevent  changes. — 

New  registration  fees 185 

B.  State  and  County  Court  Fees. — Consequences  of  using  fee 

system  in  lower  courts. —  Courts  not  self -supporting. —  Re- 
form.—  Colorado  plan;  Idaho  plan;  California  plan;  other 
schemes. —  Results   186 

C.  Federal  Court  Fees. — Accounts   kept   of   fees  collected. — 

Amount  of  increase. —  New  act  of  May  28,  1896:  Provisions; 
result 189 


CHAPTER  VI.—  Revenue  from  Fees. 

A.  Federal  Government. —  Per  cent,  of  total  receipts. —  Signifi- 

cance.—  Variations  from  year  to  year 191 

B.  Revenue  from  Fees  in  the  States. —  Variations  in  totals. —  In 

sources. —  Percentage  of  total  revenues 192 

C.  Municipal  Revenue  from  Fees. —  Sources. —  Significance  in 

different  cities.— Variations  in  amounts. —  Percentage  of 
total  municipal  receipts 196 

D.  General  Trend. —  Prospects  of  fee  legislation. —  One  category 

of  fees  tends  to  diminish  and  ultimately  disappear. —  An- 
other tends  to  increase,  becoming  taxes. —  Scope  of  the  fee 
system  extending 199 


CHAPTER  VII.—  Legal  Aspect  of  Fees. 

A.  Evolution  of  Fees  as  Interpreted  by  the  Courts.—  Law  dic- 

tionaries' interpretation. —  Early  decisions. —  Text-book 
writers'  views. —  Relation  of  fees  to  taxes. —  Fees  and  police 
power. —  Recognition  of  the  idea  of  special  benefit. —  Gaug- 
ing of  fees. —  Intent  of  law-making  bodies  and  fees 200 

B.  Fees  in  Their  Relation  to  Inter-state  Commerce. —  Theo- 

retical relation. —  Earlier  decisions. —  Changed  attitude  in 
later  decisions.  — Indirect  consequences  of  fee-legislation. — 
Attitude  of  courts  at  present 207 


xii  Urdahl — The  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

CHAPTER  VIII.—  The  Pee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  page. 

A.  The  Fee- System  and  the  Tramp  Question 211 

B.  Fees  in  Police  Courts,  and  Crime 214 

C.  Fees  and  Justices  of  the  Peace 216 

D.  Fees  of  District  Attorneys  and   the  Administration  of 

Justice 218 

E.  The  Relation  of  Fees  to  the  Divorce  Problem 222 

F.  The  Fee  System  and  Political    Corruption , 224 

APPENDIX. 

Table  I. —  Showing  License,  Examination,  and  Inspection 

Fees  in  the  United  States 231 

Table  II. —  Showing  Incorporation  Fees: — Banks,  Insur- 
ance, Railroad,  Telegraph,  etc 235 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 238 


UNIVERSITY 


THE  FEE-SYSTEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


THOMAS    K.    URDAHL. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THEORY  OF  FEES. 

Adam  Smith,  in  a  chapter  entitled  "  The  Revenue  of  the  Sov- 
ereign or  Commonwealth",2  takes  up  in  order  the  various  insti- 
tutions on  which  the  state  revenue  should  be  expended,  and  ex- 
plains how  some  of  them  can  be  made  partially  or  wholly  self- 
supporting.  "As  an  example,"  he  says,  "highways,  bridges, 
and  canals  can  be  kept  in  repair  by  tolls  paid  by  the  users. 
Courts  of  justice  and  institutions  of  learning  can  defray  at 
least  part  of  their  expenses  by  fees."  In  his  conclusion  he  says: 
"  The  expense  of  defending  society,  and  supporting  the  dignity 
of  the  chief  magistrate,  are  both  laid  out  for  the  general  benefit 
of  the  whole  society.  It  is  reasonable,  therefore,  that  they 
should  be  defrayed  by  the  general  contribution  of  the  whole  so- 
ciety, all  the  different  members  contributing,  as  nearly  as 
possible,  in  proportion  to  their  respective  abilities. 
The  administration  of  justice  may  no  doubt  be  considered 
as  laid  out  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  society. 
The  persons,  however,  who  give  occasion  to  this  expense  and 
who  are  immediately  benefited  by  this  expense"  may 
properly  be  called  upon  to  defray  it  by  particular  contribution, 
that  is,  fees  of  court. 

Again,   the  expense  of  maintaining  good  roads  "is  most  im- 
mediately and  directly  beneficial  to   those  who  travel  or  carry 

1  A  thesis  submitted  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy,  University 
of  Wisconsin,  1897. 

2  Wealth  of  Nations,  Book  V,  Chap.  I,  Part  4. 

4 


50  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

goods. "  The  expense  of  these,  as  well  as  that  of  "  institutions 
for  education  and  religious  instruction,  may  without  injustice  and 
with  some  advantage  be  defrayed  by  such  particular  members  of 
society  as  are  most  benefited  by  them. " 

It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  Adam  Smith  saw  at  the  very  out- 
set a  plain  distinction  between  taxes  in  the  narrower  sense,  and 
payments  such  as  fees,  tolls,  court  costs,  and  charges,  which 
may  be  called  by  the  general  term  "fees." 

But  this  distinction  between  taxes  and  fees  recognized  by  Adam 
Smith,  was  entirely  unnoticed  by  Ricardo,  Mill,  and  the  other 
English  economists  succeeding  him.  Not  until  the  doctrine  of 
Smith  had  reached  the  Continent  and  been  elaborated  by  the 
great  German  representative  of  his  views,  do  we  find  the  slight- 
est trace  of  the  difference  which  he  himself  but  faintly  outlined. 
A  German  writer,  Rau,1  is  the  first  to  really  put  fees  into  a 
category  distinct  from  taxes.  The  cameralist  Justi,  *  who 
wrote  at  about  the  same  time  as  Adam  Smith,  classified  public 
revenues  into  (1)  Domain,  (2)  Regalia,  (3)  Taxes,  (4)  Casual  rev- 
enues. The  latter  included  prices  and  payments  for  special 
privileges.  Rau  also  divided  the  public  revenues  into  four 
classes;  domains,  regalia,  taxes,  and  fees:  and  defines  fees  (Ge- 
biihreri)  in  such  a  way,  as  to  include  many  of  the  payments 
classed  by  Justi  in  the  fourth  category. 

Since  the  time  of  these  authors  no  two  economists  have  suc- 
ceeded in  agreeing  as  to  definition  or  content  of  this  subject. 
The  existence  of  such  a  category  seems  with  one  or  two  excep- 
tions to  be  generally  accepted  by  economic  authorities.  The 
earlier  writers  generally  treated  fees  partly  as  miscellaneous 
or  casual  revenues  and  partly,  also,  as  direct  taxes.  Although 
Rau  does  not  have  the  honor  of  being  the  first  to  recognize  the 
separate  category,  as  has  been  asserted  by  some  writers,  he 
was  the  first  to  apply  the  name  Gebuhren  to  this  category. 

He  defined  Gebuhren,  that  is,  "fees,"  as  "payments  made  on 
occasions  when  the  individual  citizen  comes  in  a  special  manner 
into  contact  with  a  state  institution  or  state  court."3     Stein,  in 

1  Allgemeine  Steuerlehre,  I,  §§  86,  227. 

2  Finanzwiesenschaft. 

3  Rau,  Finanzwiesensehaft,  I,  312. 


Theory  of  Fees.  51 

his  first  edition,  defines  fees  as  "receipts  of  the  state  for  ac- 
tivity in  the  special  interest  of  individuals. "  Both  Rau  and 
Stein,  as  is  evident  from  their  definitions,  did  not  consider  re- 
galia, (payments  for  lucrative  prerogatives),  as  fees,  but  placed 
them  in  a  distinct  category.  Stein,  however,  in  his  last  edi- 
tion concedes  that  the  regalia  are  a  part  of  the  fee  system,  but 
holds  that  they  form  a  class  of  fees  by  themselves,  entirely 
distinct.1 

Roscher4  defines  fees  as  "payments  for  individual  govern- 
mental acts  by  the  individuals  who  were  indirectly  the  cause  of 
the  act. "  And  he  limits  this  definition  by  holding  that  only 
such  acts  are  governmental  as  are  done  for  essential  state  pur- 
poses, that  is,  in  the  interest  of  law  and  sovereignty;  and,  fur- 
thermore, only  such  payments  are  fees  as  do  not  exceed,  at  least 
not  greatly,  the  cost  to  the  government  of  the  services 
rendered. 

Schall3  asserts  that  the  distinguishing  feature  of  fees  is  that 
they  are  connected  only  with  those  official  acts  which  are  per- 
formed for  the  realization  of  the  essential  state  purposes,  and 
that  the  payments  by  the  fee-payers  must  be  gauged  by  the 
value  of  the  services  of  the  public  courts  or  officials.  There  is 
thus  a  new  element  introduced,  that  of  making  the  size  of  the 
fee  proportional  to  the  service  rendered  by  the  government. 
Stein,  Rau,  and  Roscher-  asserted  that  the  fees  should  be  meas- 
ured by  the  cost,  or  expense,  which  the  official  act,  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  individual,  caused  the  government;  and  that  the 
payment  became  a  tax  in  so  far  as  it  exceeded  this  cost. 
Another  element  in  Schall 's  conception  is  that  the  quality  of  the 
official  act  determines  whether  the  payment  is  a  fee  or  not. 

Wagner4  says  a  fee  is  a    "charge  arbitrarily  fixed  in   amount 

1  Pfeiffer,  I,  295,  Staatseinnahmen,  says  that  "fees  are  collected 
from  individuals  for  special  benefits  from  those  state  institutions  which 
the  state  would  be  obliged  to  maintain  even  if  no  revenue  were  derived 
from  them,  thus  excluding  all  industries  managed  or  established  by  the 
government  for  the  sake  of  industrial  profit." 

2  Roscher,    Finanzwissenschaft.    Third  ed.,  98. 

3  Schonberg,  Handbuch,  III,  105. 
*  Finanzwissenschaft,  II,  35. 


52  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

and  method  of  payment  by  the  state,  and  collected  from  indi- 
viduals or  groups  of  individuals  for  a  special  service  rendered 
them  by  a  public  body,  designed  to  cover  the  outlay  of  the 
government  in  the  exercise  of  its  functions  in  the  public  inter- 
est. "  He  draws  a  sharp  line  between  fees  and  taxes,  holding 
that  every  payment  which  exceeds  the  cost  of  the  service  to  the 
state,  is  in  so  far  a  tax.  But  he  says,  the  idea  of  service  to 
the  individual  must  also  be  taken  into  consideration,  although 
he  does  not  explain  just  what  bearing  it  has  on  the  question.1 

Max  von  Heckel2  defines  fees  as  "payments  collected  as  a  spe- 
cial remuneration  for  the  official  activity  of  public  institutions, 
which  are  carried  on  or  performed  at  the  request  of  individuals, 
and  limited  by  the  state  in  degree  and  extent  in  accordance 
with  the  service  granted. "  And  he  explains  that  fees  may  be 
fixed  by  two  standards:  first,  the  payment  of  the  cost  which 
the  services  cause  the  government,  and  second,  the  worth  or 
value  of  the  service  to  the  individual.  He  even  goes  so  far  as 
to  hold  that  payments  do  not  necessarily  lose  the  character  of 
fees  by  exceeding  the  value  of  the  service  conferred. 

Neumann3  takes  a  still  broader  view  of  the  subject  and  holds 
that  "fees  are  payments  which  the  state  sovereignty  exacts 
from  individuals  for  services  rendered  in  their  interest.":  and 
explains  that  they  not  only  may  exceed  the  value  of  the  service 
to  the  individual  but  in  fact  should  often  do  so ;  that  the  ability 
of  the  fee-payer  and  other  considerations  should  be  the  controll- 
ing factor  in  levying  them. 

Schaffle4  recognizes  a  general  category  which  he  calls  tax- 
fees.  These  may  be  collected  by  the  state  from  individuals  on 
occasions  when  they  make  use  of  governmental  agencies  or  insti- 

1  Finanzwissenschaft,  II,  40-41. 

Von  Mayer  defines  fees  as  special  duties  to  be  paid  on  occasions  when 
public  organs  or  institutions  are  specially  called  upon  or  made  use  of. 
He  agrees  with  Wagner  in  the  main,  and  holds  that  the  fee  should  as  a 
rule  be  fixed  a  little  less  than  the  average  cost  of  the  service  and  should 
only  partially  cover  the  expense. —  Worterbueh  des  deutsches  Verwalt- 
ungsrechts,  I,  462,  466. 

2  Handworterbuch  der  Staatswissenschaften,  V,  703. 

3  Jahrbucher  fur  National  Oekonomie,  36,  494. 

4  Grundsatze  der  Steuer-politik,  pp.  51,  454. 


Theory  of  Fees.  53 

tutions  which  are  of  service  to  them.  As  a  sub-class1  under  the 
fees  he  recognizes  what  he  calls  "  fees  in  a  more  limited  sense, " 
which  he  characterizes  as  compensation  for  the  expense  of  ad- 
ministration.     (Verwaltungs-kosten-vergutungen.) 

None  of  the  French  writers  seem  to  have  recognized  fees  as 
any  distinct  category.  Not  even  Beaulieu2  in  his  Science  de 
Finance  considers  them  as  a  separate  class,  but  treats  of  these 
charges  under  other  headings.3 

The  Italian  economist  Cossa*  gives  some  attention  to  them 
and  defines  fees,  costs,  and  charges,  as  "  the  remuneration  for 
special  public  services  which  are  rendered  to  the  private  indi- 
viduals at  their  request. " 

We  thus  have  all  shades  of  opinion,  from  Professor  Bastable, 
who  denies  the  existence  of  fees  as  a  separate  category,  to 
Schaefiie,  who  would  include  all  the  taxes  on  contracts  and  trans- 
fers, inheritance  taxes,  and  so  forth,  under  that  heading.  We 
have  assertions  that  fees  should  be  levied  according  to  the  ser-  \ 
vice  rendered,  or  according  to  the  expense  to  the  government, 
or  according  to  the  pecuniary  ability  of  the  fee-payers,  or  ac- 
cording to  the  principle  of  highest  monopoly  profit. 

All  prominent  writers  on  finance  seem  to  recognize,  first,  the 
fact  that  the  official  activity  may  often  further  special  individ- 
ual interests.  But  the  concensus  of  opinion  seems  to  be  that 
public  activity  should  not  be  carried  on  purely  for  the  sake  of 
such  individual  interests.  All  recognize  further,  that  some 
payment  should  be  made  to  the  state  when  it  incidentally  con- 
fers special  benefits  upon  certain  individuals.  How  such  pay- 
ments shall  be  determined,  how  their  amount  shall  be  gauged, 
and  under  what  category  in  a  classification  of  state  revenues 
such  payments  shall  be  placed,  are  questions  which  are  still  open. 

ilbid.,  p.  496. 

2  LeRoy  Beaulieu.  The  early  writer  Parieu,  III,  165,  puts  fees  among  in- 
direct taxes . 

3  M.  Besobrasof ,  in  two  articles  entitled  fitudes  sur  les  Revenus  publics, 
seems  to  recognize  the  essential  difference  between  fees  and  taxes.  See 
page  44  of  article  published  in  1866:  Impe>iale  Acad£mie  de  Sciences, 
St.  Petersbourg. 

4  Taxation:  its  Methods  and  Principles,  p.  36. 


54  TJrdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

A.       BENEFIT,    OR  SERVICE,    AS  A    FACTOR  IN  PUBLIC   PAYMENTS. 

"  In  the  first  stages  of  development  of  the  state,"  says  Vocke,1 
M  the  possessors  of  power  and  the  people  stood  opposed  to  each 
other,  but  were  still  held  together  by  certain  common  interests. 
Agreements  had  therefore  to  be  made  from  time  to  time,  and 
whatever  lay  beyond  the  lines  of  common  interest,  had  to  be 
secured  by  certain  counter-services."  Thus  benefit  came  to  be 
the  controlling  factor  in  the  imposition  of  all  charges.  The 
state  idea  appears  for  the  first  time  in  the  organized  constitu- 
tional state.  This  recognized  that  the  state  does  not  exist  for 
its  own  sake,  but  for  that  of  the  governed,  and  hence  that  all 
state  services  could  not  and  should  not  be  paid  for  by  special 
contributions.     This  paved  the  way  for  general  taxes. 

But    long    after    the    system  of   levying  taxes  according  to 

benefits  received  "  had  been  abandoned  in  practice,  it  was 
still  clung  to  as  a  theory.  And  even  to-day  people  can  be 
found  who  assert  that  taxes  are  or  should  be  levied  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  equivalents.  But  theory  has  now  progressed  so 
far  that  it  is  really  in  advance  of  practice.3  The  old  idea  of 
service  and  counter-service  has  been  replaced  by  the  modern 
theory  of  "  equality  of  sacrifice  "  and  "  taxation  according  to 
ability  to  pay. "  Benefit,  however,  is  still  an  important  factor 
in  a  large  number  of  charges  known  by  various  names  in  dif- 
ferent countries.  In  the  United  States  this  element  enters  into 
two  distinct  classes  of  revenues,  designated  by  the  headings, 
special  assessments  and  fees. 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  scope  and  characteristics  of  these 
categories,  we  must  compare  them  with  other  classes  of  reve- 
nue which  they  resemble,  and  with  each  other. 

B.       FEES    DISTINGUISHED    FROM    TAXES. 

Fees  and  taxes  are  alike  in  that  they  are  both  compulsory 
payments  made  to  the  state  in  order  to  enable  it  to  carry  on  its 
functions.  They  are  furthermore  alike  in  that  the  amount  of 
each   is  fixed  by  state  authority.      Both  may  be  manifestations 

1  Die  Abgaben,  Auflagen,  unddie  Steuer,  p.  365. 
2Rosewater,   Monograph  on  Special  Assessments,  Columbia  College 
Studies,  II,  No.  3. 


Theory  of  Fees.  55 

of  the  taxing  power,  because  they  are  compulsory  contributions 
arbitrarily  levied  by  the  sovereign.  But  a  tax  is  a  "one-sided 
transfer  of  goods  or  services";1  a  fee  is  not.  The  latter  is  in 
the  nature  of  an  exchange  or  sale,  in  that  there  is  special  bene- 
fit to  the  individual,  for  which  the  fee  is  paid. 

The  idea  of  benefit  is  of  course  present  in  a  tax,  but  it  is  al- 
most wholly  public  benefit.     The  benefit  to  the  individual  may 
be  great  or  small  without  changing  the  amount  of  the  tax  which    , 
he  pays.     In  other  words,  the  benefit  accruing  to  the  individual  - 
from  a  tax   cannot  be   measured,  and  if  it  could,  no   system  of 
taxation  could  be  based  upon  it.     Taxes  are  based  on  the  indi- 
vidual  ability   of   the   tax-payer.     It   is  no  objection  to  a  tax,  ^ 
that  the  payer  receives  no  benefit  from   the  burden,  nor  does  it 
change  the  nature  of  the  payment  if  such  is   the  case.     While 
a  payment   ceases  to  be  a  fee  the  moment  the  special  services 
cease. 

Particular  advantage  to  an  individual  may  exist  in  a  tax,  but 
that  does  not  increase  or  diminish  the  share  of  the  tax-payer; 
while,  in  the  case  of  a  fee,  the  particular  advantage  is  the  very 
reason  and  justification  of  the  payment.  Many  writers  lay  em- 
phasis on  the  fact  that  the  fee  should  not  exceed  the  cost  to  the 
government  of  the  particular  services  rendered  to  the  individ- 
ual. Wagner  and  others  maintain  with  very  plausible  argu- 
ments, that,  as  soon  as  a  payment  exceeds  the  cost  of  the  serv- 
ice, just  so  soon  does  it  cease  to  be  a  fee  and  becomes  a  tax. 

In  some  cases  this  is  true;  but  cost  is  not  always  the  stan- 
dard according  to  which  fees  may  be  gauged.  It  is  applicable 
only  where  the  government  exhibits  some  positive  activity  for 
which  the  payment  is  made.  In  other  words,  it  can  be  applied 
in  those  cases  only  where  the  value  of  the  services  resolves 
itself  into,  or  is  measured  by,  its  cost. 

Value,  as  we  know,  is  fixed  by  marginal  utility.  The  utility 
of  a  commodity  to  an  individual  is  measured  by  its  uses,  that 
is,  by  the  amount  of  benefit  which  he  thinks  he  is  about  to  ob- 
tain from  it.  In  all  competitive  enterprises  in  which  the  com- 
modity is  reproducible  at  will,  it  is   generally   agreed  that  the 

1  Ely ,  Taxation  in  American  States  and  Cities,  p.  6. 


56  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

marginal  utility  is  fixed  ultimately  by  the  cost  of  production. 
But  we  have  seen  that  the  utility  of  an  article  is  equal  to  the 
benefit  which  the  individual  obtains  from  the  commodity.  If 
this  is  so,  then  benefits  to  the  individual  and  cost  are  identical. 
This  must  be  equally  true  of  service,  whether  the  government  or 
private  individuals  be  the  producers.  But  it  may  be  held,  that 
when  the  government  produces  a  commodity  or  performs  a  serv- 
ice, it  must  necessarily  be  in  the  nature  of  a  monopoly,  unless 
the  competition  is  free.  To  be  sure,  this  is  in  some  cases  true; 
but  the  government  does  not  necessarily  charge  a  monopoly 
price  for  its  services,  and  in  so  far  as  it  does,  to  that  extent  is 
the  individual  paying  a  special  tax  instead  of  a  fee.  It  is  not 
said,  therefore,  that  the  charge  is  illegitimate  or  unjust  simply 
because  it  has  lost  the  character  of  a  fee.  Suffice  it  here  to  say 
that,  in  all  cases  where  the  government  furnishes  a  service  or 
commodity  which  it  can  reproduce  indefinitely,  the  payment 
loses  its  character  as  a  fee  and  cannot  be  justified  as  such  the 
moment  it  exceeds  the  cost  to  the  government.  An  illustration 
will  explain  this  more  fully:  — 

It  is  not  necessarily  warmer  in  a  room  because  the  mercury 
rises  in  the  thermometer,  yet  we  regulate  the  furnace  according 
to  the  height  of  the  column.  In  the  same  way,  the  charge  does 
not  become  a  tax  because  it  exceeds  the  cost  of  the  service,  but 
because  the  cost,  like  the  thermometer,  is  an  index  of  the  amount 
of  benefit  or  value  which  the  public  service  yields  to  the  indi- 
vidual. 

Experience  has  shown  that  there  is  a  large  number  of  enter- 
prises which  may  be  termed  natural  or  economic  monopolies. 
In  these  the  public  has  usually  a  deep  interest,  from  the  fact 
that  the  commodities  or  services  supplied  by  them  are,  as  a  rule, 
public  necessities.  Public  policy  or  public  interest  therefore 
requires  that  the  enterprises  be  regulated  by  the  government, 
or  taken  entirely  out  of  private  hands  and  managed  as  public 
concerns  under  government  ownership.  If  this  is  the  case,  it 
is  understood  that  the  principal  reason  for  undertaking  the  en- 
terprise is  the  general  public  policy  or  public  welfare. 

But  the  individual  citizen  has  an  individual,  private  interest 
which  is  either  promoted  or  not.     Public  welfare   may   demand 


Theory  of  Fees.  57 

that  the  service  should  be  furnished  for  exactly  what  it  costs, 
that  is,  that  each  individual  pay  for  the  special  benefit  he  re- 
ceives, and  no  more,  as  in  the  case  of  our  Post  Office.  The  pay- 
ment then  is  a  fee.  The  same  public  welfare  may  demand  that 
the  government  derive  as  much  revenue  from  an  enterprise  as 
possible.  As  an  example  may  be  mentioned  the  tobacco  monop- 
oly in  France,  where  the  special  tax  is  as  easily  justified  as  the 
sale  of  two  cent  postage  stamps  by  our  own  government.  We 
can  therefore  find  all  kinds  of  charges;  from  the  pure  taxes  of 
monopoly,  to  the  free  goods  furnished  to  the  individual  at  state 
expense. 

C.       LTCENSE    FEES. 

Fees  are  not  only  paid  for  benefit  actually  received,  but  are 
often  paid  in  anticipation  of  a  benefit  which  is  expected  in  the 
future.  The  latter  is  generally  in  the  nature  of  a  privilege.  ^ 
As  Professor  Seligman  puts  it:1  "The  particular  thing  done 
by  the  government  in  return  for  a  fee  may  be  either  the  dis- 
play of  some  positive  energy,  as  in  furnishing  a  water-supply, 
or  it  may  be  simply  permission  to  do  some  thing.  The  govern- 
ment may  create  direct  utilities,  or  it  may  permit  the  individ- 
ual to  create  utilities;  but  in  each  case  it  demands  a  return  for 
the  privilege. " 

Fees  are  therefore  not  limited  to  charges  which  are  fixed  by 
the  government  according  to  the  cost  or  expense  involved,  but 
they  include  a  number  of  payments  in  which  the  cost  is  of  minor 
or  no  importance.  Such  charges  are  popularly  known  as  licen- 
ses, or  license-fees.  It  is  obvious  that  these  cannot  be  measured 
by  the  cost  to  the  state,  because  the  privileges,  immunities,  or 
exemptions  granted,  cost,  as  a  rule,  almost  nothing.  The  rea-  jla^J 
son  why  cost  cannot  be  made  a  standard  of  measurement  in  ' 
these  cases,  is  because  cost  here  does  not  correspond  to  the 
special  benefit  to  the  individual.  The  costs  often  amount  only 
to  the  expense  of  making  out  the  written  instrument  and  con- 
veying the  license;  and  this  fact  is  often  recognized  by  charging 
an  extra  fee  for  it  and  another  fee  for  the   license  proper.     In 

1  Essays  in  Taxation,  p.  278. 


58  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

all  such  cases  the  fee  cannot  exceed  the  value  of  the  privilege 
or  exemption  granted  by  the  public  body.  The  payment,  there- 
fore, is  based  on  the  theory  of  equivalents. 

But  what  is  the  equivalent  which  the  liquor-dealer  gets  in 
return  for  the  $200  or  $500  license  fee  which  he  pays?  Judge 
Cooley  ■  and  others  say  it  is  the  expense  which  the  state  must 
undergo  in  order  to  regulate  his  business,  and  to  estimate  this 
expense  "  it  is  reasonable  to  take  into  account  all  the  incidental 
consequences  that  may  be  likely  to  subject  the  public  to  cost  " 
(such  as  prevention  of  resulting  crime  and  disorder).  Professor 
Seligman  2  does  not  go  so  far;  but  thinks  that  high  liquor  li- 
censes undoubtedly  must  be  considered  as  taxes,  because  there 
is  no  way  of  finding  out  how  much  pauperism  and  crime  is  due 
to  the  liquor  traffic,  and  how  much  to  other  things.  With 
slight  modifications  this  view  has  apparently  been  accepted  by 
many  of  the  modern  writers  on  Finance. 

But  is  this  view  correct,  if  we  accept  presence  or  absence  of 
benefit  as  the  feature  which  distinguishes  fees  from  taxes? 
Does  the  licensee  get  more  benefit  from  the  fact  that  the  govern- 
ment spends  more  money  to  regulate  his  trade?  It  seems  per- 
fectly evident  that  such  is  not  the  case.  But  the  real  benefit 
which  a  licensee  gets  from  a  license,  may  be  ascertained  in  an- 
other way. 

Suppose  a  license  charge  is  so  small  that  it  does  not  drive 
any  competitors  out  of  the  business,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  does 
not  result  in  an  increase  in  the  retail  price  of  the  commodity 
sold.  It  is  then  perfectly  clear  that  the  burden  of  the  charge 
must  fall  on  those  engaged  in  the  business.  But  suppose  that 
the  charge  is  so  high  that  one  half  of  those  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness are  compelled  to  abandon  it.  Assuming  that  the  retail 
price  remains  unchanged,  the  first  thought  would  be  that  those 
paying  the  license  charge  would  still  be  the  bearers  of  the  bur- 
den. But  a  more  careful  consideration  will  show  that  such  is 
not  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  it  may  often  happen  that  those 
paying  the  license  charge  gain  more   than    the  amount  paid,  in 

1  Taxation,  p.  598. 

2  Essays  in  Taxation,  p.  281. 


Theory  of  Fees.  59 

increased  business;  because  the  customers  of  all  those  who  were 
compelled  to  close  their  doors,  will  virtually  be  transferred  by  the 
high  license  to  the  surviving  retailers.  Under  this  assumption, 
it  may  thus  happen  that  many  of  the  high  liquor  licenses  are 
not  taxes  at  all,  but  fees;  because  they  are  payments  for  what 
may  be  termed  partial  monopoly  privileges.  This  conclusion  is 
amply  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  many  of  the  owners  of  the 
large  saloons  in  some  of  the  great  cities  openly  favor  high  li- 
censes in  preference  to  low  charges.  This  conclusion  cannot  be 
carried  too  far,  however;  other  elements  must  be  taken  into 
consideration.  If  the  charge  is  made  high  enough,  it  is  very 
likely  to  result  in  an  increased  price  and,  in  that  way,  to  be 
shifted  to  the  consumer.  It  then  has  all  the  characteristics  of 
an  indirect  tax.  But  this  throws  no  light  on  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  charge  is  a  fee  or  a  tax.  It  may  be  a  tax  on  the 
dealer,  even  if  the  consumer  goes  free.  If  the  charge  is  in- 
creased indefinitely,  it  will  ultimately  become  a  tax  either  on 
the  one  or  the  other.  When,  then,  the  increase  in  the  amount 
of  the  charge  fails  to  drive  any  dealers  out  of  the  business;  in 
other  words,  when  it  ceases  to  turn  over  to  those  paying  the 
charge  enough  customers  to  counter-balance  the  payment,  then 
the  point  is  reached  where  the  payment  ceases  to  be  a  fee.  The 
transition,  therefore,  of  fees  into  taxes  is  brought  about  by  the 
loss  of  the  idea  of  service,  or  by  the  charge  being  made  so 
great  as  to  exceed  the  benefit  conferred. 

D.       LICENSE    FEES    DISTINGUISHED    FROM    SPECIAL    TAXES. 

In  special  taxes  the  government  attempts  to  do  some  special 
thing  for  the  community,  but  the  individual  bearing  the  tax  is 
not  necessarily  guaranteed  a  share  in  it.  A  property  owner 
pays  a  special  school  tax,  whether  he  makes  use  of  the  schools 
or  not.  Although  there  is  some  benefit  derived  from  the  special 
tax,  provided  he  makes  use  of  the  schools,  still  that  is  not  the 
reason  or  justification  for  its  collection;  while  in  license  fees 
there  is  always  a  special  benefit,  the  value  of  which  the  fee 
does  not  exceed.  If  the  charge  is  greater  than  the  benefit,  then 
it  becomes  to  that  extent  a  license  tax.     When  a  charge  is  im- 


60  TJrdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

posed  to  carry  on  a  business  which  before  was  open  to  anyone  with- 
out a  license,  and  it  is  not  imposed  to  cover  cost  of  regulation 
or  other  governmental  expenses  which  are  of  real  benefit  to  the 
licensee,  then  the  charge  is  a  license  tax;  and  not  a  fee  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  word. 


E.       FEES    DISTINGUISHED    FROM    SPECIAL    ASSESSMENTS. 

Fees  and  special  assessments  have  so  many  points  of  similar- 
ity that  most  of  the  German  writers  have  made  assessments  a. 
subclass  under  fees.  Only  one  German  writer 1  has  placed  them 
in  any  distinct  category.  Both  fees  and  special  assessments 
are  based  on  the  doctrine  of  special  benefits.  In  both  cases  the 
payer  receives  an  equivalent  for  his  payment.  Furthermore,, 
both  are  payments  which  in  no  way  displace  taxes  or  exempt 
from  taxation.  The  direct  tax  will  be  exactly  the  same, 
whether  an  individual  pays  a  heavy  special  assessment  or  num- 
erous and  large  fees  during  the  year.  Neither  fees  nor  assess- 
ments are  levied  according  to  the  ability  of  the  payers.  The 
objective  features  of  the  service  rather  than  the  subjective 
ability  of   the  payer,    must  be    taken    into   consideration. 

Due  attention  must,  no  doubt,  be  given  in  all  fee  and  special 
assessment  legislation  to  the  considerations  emphasized  by  Neu- 
mann 2  in  his  article  entitled  "Taxation  according  to  ability  to 
pay,"  namely,  the  effect  of  a  high  or  low  fee  on  the  demand 
for  the  service;  the  relation  of  demand  for  the  service  to  the 
supply  of  the  same ;  the  relation  of  increased  demand  for  a  serv- 
ice to  public  health  or  general  welfare;  the  relation  of  cost  of 
a  service  to  an  increasing  demand  and  so  on.  But  none  of 
these  can  be  taken  as  a  general  guide,  by  which  to  regulate  the 
amount  which  should  be  charged  for  a  public  service.  None  of 
them  can  hold  the  same  place  in  fee-legislation  that  "  ability  to 
pay  "  does  in  tax-legislation ;  nor  can  any  characteristic  or  con- 
dition of  the  payer  be  made  the  criterion  by  which  the  size  of 
fees  in  general  can  be  fixed. 

1  Neumann;  Die  Steuer  und  das  offentliehe  Interesse,  pp.  327,  334. 

2  Die  Steuer  nach  der  Steuerfahigkeit.  (Jahrbiicher  fur  national- 
Oekonomie,  36,  p.  499 . 


i  XJNiVBRSITT  1 

Theory  of  Fees.  61 

la  both  fees  and  assessments  the  element  of  public  purpose 
may  be  present  in  the  consideration  rendered  as  an  equivalent. 
Neither  is  collected  primarily  to  procure  revenue  to  defray  ex- 
pense of  government,  but  both  are  levied  normally  to  pay  for 
the  cost  of  services  or  improvements  given  by  the  government. 

But  the  differences  are  just  as  striking.  Special  assessments 
are  levied  on  the  owners  of  property  in  fixed  local  territorial 
districts  for  benefits  accruing  to  the  property  as  a  result  of  pub- 
lic improvements;  while  fees  are  levied  on  no  class  in  particu- 
lar, but  on  individuals,  and  are  returns  for  any  public  benefits 
or  services  to  the  individual,  whether  it  affect  his  personal  prop-  , 
erty,  real  estate,  or  anything  esteemed  of  value.  In  special  as- 
sessments the  total  sum  to  be  collected  is  absolutely  fixed  and 
determined  upon  beforehand;  while  the  revenue  from  fees  de- 
pends on  various  circumstances,  such  as  general  prosperity, 
condition  of  markets,  and  so  on. 

We  have  thus  briefly  summarized  the  distinctions  between 
fees,  taxes,  and  special  assessments.  It  must  be  remembered, 
however,  that  in  a  large  number  of  fees  there  is  no  practical 
method  of  measuring  accurately  the  special  benefit;  hence  the 
government  is  forced  to  fix  the  fees  arbitrarily.  The  practical 
distinction  will  therefore  be  the  intention  or  the  motive  of  the  gov-/ 
ernment.1  If  it  levies  merely  a  counter  payment  for  its  estimate 
of  the  roughly  measurable  special  benefit,  then  the  payment  is 
a  fee;  while,  in  case  of  a  tax,  it  arbitrarily  decides  to  use  the 
opportunity  of  exacting  some  revenue  without  reference  to  the 
special  benefit  to  the  tax- paying  individual. 

In  drawing  the  line  of  demarcation  between  fees  and  taxes,  it 
is  not  said  that  the  charges  should  never  be  so  high  as  to  be- 
oome  a  tax.  In  fact  it  is  sometimes  desirable  and  proper  that 
such  taxes  should  be  levied.  Take  a  high  liquor  license  as  an 
example.  There  is  no  doubt  that,  if  it  be  made  high  enough,  it 
become  a  special  tax;  but  it  may  be  the  very  best  kind  of  a  tax, 
in  that  it  is  easily  collected  and  discourages  the  consumption  of 
spirituous    beverages.     Still,  the    distinction    between  fees  and 

1  So  held  in  the  case  of  Harmon  v.  City  of  Chicago  (Sup.  Court  Rep., 
XIII,  p.  306). 


62  TJrdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

taxes  is  of  vital  importance,  inasmuch  as  each  must  be  levied 
according  to  an  entirely  distinct  set  of  economic  and  financial 
principles.  A  fee  should  be  judged  distinctly  as  a  fee;  a  tax 
should  be  levied  according  to  the  principles  of  taxation.1 

P.   PUBLIC  PURPOSE  IN  FEES. 

Professor  Patten 2  says :  "  The  test  of  a  good  tax  is  that  it 
creates  more  wealth  than  it  destroys.  If  the  courts,  post  office, 
parks,  gas  and  waterworks,  street,  river  and  harbor  improve- 
ments and  the  public  works  do  not  increase  the  prosperity  of 
society,  they  should  not  be  conducted  by  the  state. "  So  the  es- 
sential justification  of  fees  must  be  found  in  the  existence  of 
many  public  activities  and  their  effect  upon  individuals. 

The  tendency  of  public  activity  in  modern  times  is  in  two  di- 
rections: (1),  limitation;  (2),  extension.  It  is  toward  limita- 
tion in  that  all  those  public  activities  which  are  not  actuated 
by  the  motive  of  public  purpose,  are  gradually  abandoned  to 
private  initiative;  for  example,  the  manufacture  of  gunpowder. 
The  tendency  is  toward  extension  in  that  activities  and  institu- 
tions which  at  first  were  left  entirely  to  private  enterprise,  are 
changed  into  public  institutions  or  industries.  The  reason  for 
the  change  is  that  the  public  has  gradually  acquired  a  greater 
interest  in  the   institution,  until    finally  it  is  deemed   advisable 

1  These  distinctions  between  fees,  special  assessments,  and  taxes  are 
essentially  the  same  as  those  outlined  by  Professor  Seligman  in  his 
Essay  on  the  Classification  of  Public  Revenues.  But  the  general 
application  of  the  theory  of  special  benefit,  especially  in  its  relation  to  li- 
cense fees,  is  radically  different  from  the  view  taken  by  Professor  Selig- 
man; because  he  seems  to  forget  that  cost  here  cannot  represent  the  meas- 
ure of  the  special  benefit  to  the  licensee.  (Ibid.,  p.  281.)  In  the  same  way 
his  contention,  so  frequently  emphasized,  that  special  benefit  to  the  indi- 
vidual tends  to  disappear  wherever  the  payment  made  therefor  exceeds  or 
falls  short  of  the  cost  of  the  service,  is,  when  analysed,  simply  a  return  to 
the  old  theory  that  costs  determine  the  existence  and  size  of  fees.  By  re- 
fusing to  recognize  the  existence  of  a  special  benefit  where  the  charge  does 
not  equal  the  cost,  Professor  Seligman  really  makes  cost  the  criterion; 
though  he  claims  throughout  that  special  benefit  is  the  controlling  consid- 
eration . 

2  Dynamic  Economics,  p.  104. 


Theory  of  Fees.  63 

to  take  it  entirely  out  of  private  hands.  An  invention  of  great 
social  importance,  a  change  in  the  habits  and  standard  of  life 
of  a  class  of  people,  or  the  rapid  growth  of  a  city,  are  all 
factors  which  may  necessitate  the  peformance  of  certain  duties 
by  the  state,  in  which,  but  a  short  time  before,  the  element  of 
public  purpose  was  of  little  importance  or  almost  wholly  lack- 
ing. 

We  may  therefore  have  public  institutions  with  all  the  vary- 
ing degrees  of  public  purpose  present,  and  the  charges  should 
then  be  diminished  as  the  latter  increases.1  The  greater  the 
measurable  differential  gains  to  the  individual  and  the  more  the 
costs  of  these  activities  are  increased,  the  higher  ought  the 
charge  to  be. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  more  the  object  of  public  interest2  en- 
ters and  the  more  the  differential  gains  to  the  individual  disap- 
pear, the  lower  the  fees  ought  to  be. 

In  a  progressive  nation,  that  is,  one  whose  economy  is  dy- 
namic, the  tendency  is  to  extend  the  fee  system  so  that  competi- 
tion prices  will  gradually  be  displaced  by  fees.  Within  the  bound- 
ary which  separates  fees  from  taxes,  there  is  a  large  field  within 
which  the  size  of  the  individual  fees  must  be  fixed.  The  power 
to  do  this  must  be  left  to  the  discretion  and  judgment  of  the 
legislator  and  the  administrative  official.  By  these  the  welfare 
and  interest  of  the  general  public  must  always  be  kept  in  mind. 
Though  complete  remuneration  may  be  justified  as  far  as  the  in- 
dividual is  concerned,  yet  the  public  welfare  may  demand  that 
it  be  less.  The  Post  Office  does  not  exist  only  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  use  it.  Its  influence  goes  farther.  Its  greatest 
service  is  perhaps  the  commerce  it  creates,  "  by  bringing  differ- 
ent sections  into  closer  contact."  Street  car  service  is  of  im- 
portance, not  only  to  those   who  make   direct  use  of  it,  but  to 

1  Seligman,  Essays  in  Taxation,  pp.  296-7. 

2  "  Public  interest,"  or  "  public  purpose,"  here  means  that  public  wel- 
fare demands  that  the  services  furnished  by  the  institution  in  question  be 
as  generally  utilized  as  possible.  In  granting  the  privileges  for  which 
license  fees  are  paid,  the  public  purpose  is  therefore  less,  because  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  the  license  charge  is  usually  to  restrict  the  number  exer- 
cising the  privilege. 


64  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

the  entire  city  when  the  public  welfare  is  considered;  since 
rents  are  reduced,  better  sanitary  conditions  are  obtained  by  the 
opening  of  suburbs,  and  so  on.  Finally,  perhaps  the  most  im- 
portant of  all,  the  public  schools  are  of  value,  not  only  to  the 
pupils  who  gain  instruction,  but  the  welfare  of  the  whole  nation 
depends  upon  their  activity.  It  is  therefore  justifiable  to  charge 
no  fee  for  their  use.  In  the  same  way  the  low  postal  charge  on 
printed  matter  may  perhaps  be  justified  in  the  interest  of  edu- 
cation. 

The  tendency  in  modern  times  is  to  increase  the  importance 
of  public  purpose  and  therefore  to  decrease  the  fees;  in  many 
cases  to  such  an  extent  that  charges  entirely  disappear.  The 
sphere  of  public  goods,  or  free  goods,  as  they  have  been  termed, 
is  gradually  widening.  Free  public  schools,  free  public  libra- 
ries, public  parks,  free  concerts  are,  all  of  them,  public  institu- 
tions which  but  a  short  time  ago  were  not  free,  but  were  gov- 
erned on  the  principle  of  service  and  counter-service;  in  other 
words,  were  fee-collecting  institutions.  Many  others  are  chang- 
ing in  the  same  direction.  Already,  strong  pleas  have  been 
made  for  free  public  water-works,  and  lower  fees  in  the  admin- 
istration of  justice,  and  even  for  free  transportation. 

It  is  therefore  plain  that  the  principles  and  rules  which  must 
govern  a  system  of  fees  are  not  absolute,  but  may  and  must  change 
from  time  to  time  or  place  to  place.  In  other  words,  they  are 
historically  relative  to  circumstances.  They  must  be  modified 
in  each  country  so  as  to  keep  pace  and  be  in  harmony  with  the 
general  development,  with  the  legal  and  economic  progress  of 
the  nation.  A  system  of  fees  applicable  to  one  nation  may  not 
be  so  to  another. 

The  foregoing  throws  some  light  on  one  phase  of  the  theory 
of  fees  on  which  great  emphasis  has  been  laid  by  many  of  the 
German  economists,  namely :  that  the  term  "  fees  "  should  be 
restricted  to  such  payments  as  are  made  for  the  services  of  in- 
stitutions which  are  absolutely  necessary  to  the  realization  of 
essential  state  purposes.  It  is  contended  that  only  those  insti- 
tutions are  essential  which  tend  to  preserve  or  further  the  ex- 
istence of  purely  state  functions.  In  this  way  payments  made 
for  such  services  as  are   furnished   by  the  Post  Office,  the  gov- 


Theory  of  Fees.  65 

eminent  telegraph,  or  railroads  are  supposed  to  be  excluded 
from  the  category  called  fees.  From  what  has  already  been 
said,  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  no  hard  and  fast  line  can  be 
drawn  between  essential  state  institutions  and  others.  The  in- 
stitutions which  may  be  regarded  as  absolutely  essential  at  one 
time,  may  not  be  so  regarded  at  another;  because  the  public  in- 
terest or  public  purpose  in  the  institution  may  be  strong  at  one 
time  and  then  gradually  disappear. 

Thus  Wagner  has  formulated  his  theory  in  such  a  way  as  to 
include  under  this  heading,  not  only  payments  for  services  of 
institutions  which  are  maintained  for  the  realization  of  essen- 
tial state  purposes,  but  also  of  institutions  for  the  promotion  of 
civilization  and  general  public  welfare.  He  sees  fit,  however, 
to  exclude  state  railroads  and  other  similar  activities  from  this 
class;  and  designates  the  government  receipts  from  these  sources 
as  income  from  industrial  pursuits.1  He  thus  tries  to  find  a  line 
of  cleavage  between  public  business  and  industrial  undertakings, 
a  line  which  it  is  impossible  to  draw;  because  the  relation  of 
the  state  to  the  various  institutions  is  constantly  changing. 
"  The  real  consideration  in  the  classification  of  public  revenues, 
is  not  so  much  conditions  affecting  the  action  of  the  government 
or  the  kinds  of  business  conducted  by  the  government,  as  the 
economic  relations  existing  between  the  individual  and  the  gov- 
ernment. " 2  It  is  the  relation  of  the  special  benefit  which  the 
public  service  yields,  to  the  price  paid  for  such  benefit,  which 
determines  whether  the  amount  paid  is  a  fee,  a  price,  or  a  tax. 

G.       METHOD   OF    COLLECTING    FEES. 

Fees  may  be  collected  either  directly  or  indirectly.  They  are 
collected  directly  by  officials  appointed  for  the  purpose.  Very 
often  the  officials  receive  the  fees  as  salary  or  remuneration  of 
office,  after  the  manner  of  most  of  the  court  fees  in  the  United 
States.  On  other  occasions  they  are  collected  directly  by  offi- 
cials and  turned  into  the  treasury  from  which  again  they  draw 
a  fixed  salary.     In   some  European  countries   the   official  is  al- 

1  Finanzwissenschaft,  II,  41. 

2  Seligman,  Essays  in  Taxation,  p.  293. 


66  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

lowed  to  retain  a  certain  per  centum  of  all  fees  collected  by  him, 
so  as  to  insure  the  rigid  enforcement  of  the  law.1  There  are  a 
large  number  of  services  which  are  of  so  heterogeneous  a  char- 
acter that  it  is  impossible  to  classify  them  definitely.  In  such 
cases  direct  collection  is  absolutely  necessary. 

The  indirect  method  of  collection  has  become  extremely  im- 
portant in  most  civilized  countries  of  to-day.  This  is  by  means 
of  stamps.  It  must  be  evident  at  the  very  outset  that  all  stamps 
are  not  fees.  The  very  term  "  stamp-tax, "  with  which  we  are 
familiar,  indicates  that  something  more  than  fees  has  often  been 
collected.  The  collection  of  taxes  and  fees  by  means  of  stamps 
is  said  to  have  originated  in  Holland,  when  that  country  was  in 
the  midst  of  its  war  with  Spain;2  and  it  was  soon  introduced  into 
nearly  every  country  in  Europe.  At  present  nearly  every  civi- 
lized country  obtains  considerable  revenue  in  this  way.  These 
receipts  include  both  fees  and  taxes  which  have  the  common 
property,  that  they  can  be  conveniently  collected  by  means  of 
stamps.  The  advantages  are,  that  elaborate  computation  by 
the  officials  is  done  away  with;  and  the  complicated  system  of 
book-keeping  which  this  necessitated,  is  avoided.  They  are 
economical  both  to  the  government  and  the  public.  To  the  lat- 
ter, they  save  all  the  trouble  and  the  time  which  a  visit  to  a 
public  official  would  involve.  The  computation  and  payment  of 
stamps  must  be  done  by  the  public,  and  is  therefore,  as  Roscher 
says,  "  a  kind  of  self-government  " ;  but  it  is  also  accompanied 
by  the  disadvantages  of  self-government,  in  that  it  requires  an 

1  The  political  corruption  which  this  method  of  collecting  fees  has  re- 
sulted in,  will  be  treated  of  subsequently. 

2  In  1624  the  authorities  of  Holland  offered  a  prize  of  a  certain  sum  of 
money  to  anyone  who  should  provide  a  scheme  for  a  new  system  of  taxa- 
tion. The  prize  was  awarded  to  the  originator  of  stamps.  Fouquet,  dur- 
ing the  Fronde  troubles  in  1651,  introduced  stamp- taxes  in  France,  and  the 
system  was  still  further  extended  by  Colbert  in  1693.  Denmark  levied  a 
stamp-tax  in  Schleswig-Holstein  in  1657  and  introduced  it  in  the  home 
country  in  1660.  Prussia  learned  to  make  use  of  the  new  tax  in  1686,  and 
England  followed  in  1694,  with  a  general  stamp  act  which  took  the  place 
of  the  law  imposing  court  fees.  Russia,  in  1699,  was  the  last  to  adopt  it. 
Roscher,  System  der  JFinanzwissemchaft,  p.  110;  Stengel,  W&rter- 
bitch  der  deutschen  Verwaltungslehre,  II,  544. 


Ancient  and  Mediaeval  Europe.  67 

elaborate  system  of  laws  fixing  penalties  for  a  violation  of  stamp 
acts,  and  providing  nullifying  acts  in  case  documents  are  un- 
stamped. 

When  individuality  in  public  acts  begins,  and  classes  which 
may  be  represented  by  typical  acts  or  measurements  disappear, 
then  the  stamp  must  give  way  to  direct  collection.  Von  Heckel  ■ 
says :  "  As  a  system  of  fees  developes  and  differentiates,  the  fees 
on  documents,  as  such,  will  gradually  change  to  fees  on  official 
acts ;  general  fees  will  become  special  fees  and  the  collection  of 
fees  by  stamps  will  tend  to  disappear  or  be  displaced  by  lump- 
payments.  "  As  an  example  may  be  mentioned  the  Bank  of  Eng- 
land, which  pays  £60,000  a  year  in  lieu  of  fees. 


CHAPTER    II. 


GENERAL  SURVEY  OP  THE  PEE  SYSTEM  IN  EUROPE. 

Attention  has  been  called  by  various  writers  to  the  fact,  that 
taxation  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  is  almost  entirely  a 
product  or  development  of  the  last  few  centuries.  Not  so  with 
the  fee  system.  Payments  which  resemble  and  possess  the  na- 
ture of  fees,  may  be  found  in  almost  every  government  of  which 
we  have  any  knowledge.  Although,  perhaps,  no  definite  relation 
can  be  traced  between  our  fees  of  to-day  and  those  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  still  the  close  connection  between  our  civilization 
and  the  institutions  of  the  past,  makes  it  imperative,  that  some 
attention  be  given  to  the  history  of   the  fee  system  in  Europe. 

GREECE. 

Greece  is  clearly  the  first  and  foremost  of  the  nations  of  anti- 
quity, not  only  in  civilization  but,  in  a  certain  sense,  also  in 
political  capacitjT.  Her  institutions  and  laws  were  studied  and 
utilized  by  the  Romans  and  have   even  been  imitated  down  to 

1  Handworterbuch  der  Staatswissenschaften,  V,  708. 


68  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

the  present.  Her  system  of  courts  and  their  administration 
was  at  one  time  as  efficient  and  elaborate  as  many  in  existence 
to-day. 

When  the  Athenian  citizen  brought  his  suit  in  a  Greek  court 
of  justice,  he  was  first  required  to  deposit  the  pryta?iia,  a  sum 
of  money  corresponding  to  our  docket  fee,  intended  to  cover  the 
cost  of  the  trial.  In  amount  they  were  roughly  graduated  ac- 
cording to  the  size  of  the  sum  at  stake.  These  prytania  were 
•originally  intended  as  the  compensation  of  the  judges,  but  were 
subsequently  paid  to  the  state,  which  in  turn  remunerated  the 
judges  with  salaries.1  If  either  party  wished  to  appeal  the  suit 
to  a  higher  court,  it  was  required  to  deposit  the  paracatabole, 
a  fee  similar  to  the  prytania.  Costs,  parastasia,  were  charged 
to  the  losing  party,  at  the  conclusion  of  a  trial,  and  paid  over 
to  the  winner.  Besides  this  there  were  the  epobelia,  the  nature 
of  which  is  little  known.  During  the  Athenian  supremacy 
court  fees  are  reported  to  have  been  an  important  source  of 
revenue,  because  all  the  allies  had  to  take  their  suits  to  Athens 
for  trial. 

Harbor  fees  were  no  less  developed  than  the  Greek  court  fees. 
As  soon  as  a  vessel  entered  one  of  the  far  famed  harbors,  on 
which  the  Greeks  had  expended  so  much  care  and  money,  it  was 
met  by  the  harbor  master  and  required  to  pay  its  harbor  fee. 
If  it  happened  to  be  a  merchant  vessel,  it  was  required  to  pay 
another  fee  for  permission  to  unload  at  the  public  wharves  and 
a  ware-house  fee  for  depositing  goods  in  ware-houses.2. 

Furthermore,  we  find  a  developed  system  of  market  fees 
charged  in  Athens  for  permission  to  enter  the  public  market, 
for  permit  to  occupy  a  stall,  and  for  permits  to  foreigners  to 
sell.  Here  also  were  charged  license  fees  for  permits  to  quack 
doctors,  jugglers,  performers  of  various  kinds,  and  prostitutes. 
The  protection  of  the  merchant-men  of  Greece  required  a  large 
fleet  of  warships,  which  were  supported  by  Athens.  For  the 
protection  thus  afforded,  the  allies  were  expected  to  pay  an- 
nually a  fixed  tribute  into  the  Athenian  treasury. 

The  Athenian  tributes  had  therefore,  to  some  extent  at  least, 

1  Meier  SchOnmann,  Der  Attische  Process,  II,  948. 
2Boekh,  Saatshaushalt  der  Athener. 


Ancient  and  Mediaeval  Europe.  69 

the  nature  of  fees  granted  for  services.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the 
Greek  fee  system  was,  like  Greek  civilization,  far  in  advance  of 
any  other  produced  by  the  nations  of  antiquity,  and  may  even 
be  compared  with  those  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

ROME. 

The  financial  problem  which  confronted  Rome  and  her  people, 
after  she  had  become  mistress  of  the  Mediterranean,  was  far 
different  from  that  which  the  Greeks  had  met  and  partially 
solved.  The  coffers  of  Rome  were  filled  to  overflowing  with  the 
tributes  and  plunder  of  conquered  nations.  She  was  not  there- 
fore compelled  to  devise  schemes  for  making  her  offices  self- 
supporting.  Thousands  of  captives  were  each  year  brought 
home  to  be  used  by  the  state  as  slaves,  many  of  them  as  clerks, 
recorders,  and  copyists  in  the  public  offices.1  The  state  was 
thus  enabled  to  furnish  its  services  to  its  citizens  for  nothing, 
and  as  a  result  the  fee  system  was  comparatively  unknown  un- 
til long  after  Rome  had  reached  its  zenith.2  A  noteworthy  ex- 
ception is  in  the  Roman  temples.3  Many  of  these  required  the 
attendance  of  numerous  priests  and  vestal  virgins.  The  volun- 
tary contributions  which  were  at  first  made  by  worshippers, 
becoming  gradually  compulsory  and  fixed  by  custom,  were  at 
last  collected  in  the  form  of  admission  fees  from  all  who  wished 
to  enter.  For  permission  to  approach  the  altar,  a  special  fee 
was  charged;  and  a  permit  to  sacrifice  required  a  third  pay- 
ment into  the  temple-chest,  or  treasury.  At  the  time  of  the 
great  festivals  and  religious  ceremonies  many  of  the  temples 
obtained  large  revenues  from  these  sources. 

In  civil  cases*  a  fee  corresponding  to  the  Greek  prytania 
originated  very  early  in  the  history  of  Rome,  and  was  called  sac- 
ramentum 5  but  later  it  was  regularly  known  under  its  Greek  desig- 
nation. The  etymology  of  the  word,  sacramentum,  shows  that  it 
was  originally  a  pledge  presented  to  the  temple  or,  at  least,  en- 

1  Mommsen,  Romisches  Staatsrecht,  I,  239. 

2Seyffert,  Diet.  Class.  Ant.,  p.  55. 

8  Mommsen,  II,  62-65. 

*  Wagner,  Finanzivissenschaft.  II,  52. 

'Mommsen,  II,  65. 


70  Urdahl— Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

trusted  to  it  for  safe-keeping.  At  first  it  consisted  in  five  sheep 
or  five  oxen  according  to  the  value  of  the  object  in  dispute.  These 
were  commuted  later  on  into  money  payments.  If  the  sum  in 
litigation  was  less  than  1,000  drachmae,  about  $300,  the  fee  was 
thirty  drachmae,  or  I9.1 

When  the  enormous  revenues  from  conquered  empires  began  to 
flow  into  Rome,  pressure  was  at  once  exerted  to  secure  free  serv- 
ices of  various  kinds.  As  a  result,  we  see  the  citizens  of  Rome 
furnished  with  almost  every  kind  of  public  services  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  imperial  treasury.  Increasing  density  of  popula- 
tion necessitated  the  employment  of  more  public  officers,  some 
of  whom  were  paid  out  of  the  public  purse,  while  others  held 
honorary  offices,  with  public  slaves  to  do  the  work.  The  public 
Tabularius,  corresponding  to  our  Register  of  Deeds,  or  Recorder, 
employed  a  whole  army  of  clerks,  excerptores,  who  were  either 
slaves  or  freedmen.2  Still  the  custom  of  paying  sacramenta  had 
become  so  firmly  fixed  that  it  was  continued  even  during  the 
period  of  Rome's  greatest  prosperity.  No  other  judicial  fees 
appear  to  have  existed  for  any  period  of  time.  Any  citizen 
might  prosecute  a  criminal  trial  at  the  expense  of  the  state; 
but  in  case  he  did  not  succeed  in  getting  the  verdict  of  at  least 
one-third  of  the  judges,  he  was  obliged  to  pay  a  fee  in  the  na- 
ture of  a  fine. 

As  soon  as  the  streams  of  tribute  ceased  to  flow  into  the 
imperial  city,  financial  troubles  began.  Attempts  were  made 
to  raise  money  in  various  ways.  Vectigalia,3  or  taxes,  and  tolls 
of  various  kinds  were  levied.  Fees  were  charged  for  the  use  of 
water- works,4  when  utilized  for  private  purposes;  although  the 
public  fountains  in  the  streets  were  free.  Permits  to  use  sew- 
ers were  paid  for.  Various  administrative  fees  developed,  in  the 
form  of  charges  for  numerous  services,  real  or  imaginary,  which 
were  performed  by  the  government.  Probate  fees,  which  at 
first  were  moderate,  were  exploited  more  and  more,  until  it  was 
at  last  declared  that  no  will  could  be  legal  and   be  executed  in 

1  Seyffert,  Diet.  Class.  A  nt.  p.  551. 
2Mommsen,  I,  251-259.     Humbert,  I,  230. 
3  Humbert,  Essai,  I,  407. 
'Mommsen,  I,  416-478;  II,  1006. 


Ancient  and  Mediaeval  Europe.  71 

Roman  courts  which  did  not  bequeath  a  legacy  or  percentage 
to  the  emperor.  The  magnificent  Roman  highways,  although 
built  at  public  expense,  were  to  be  repaired  by  the  municipali- 
ties. To  meet  these  expenses  they  levied  road-tolls  for  their 
use. 

During  the  decline  all  fees  were  used  as  instruments  of  extor- 
tion and  oppression.  Accounts  were  rendered  to  the  senate, 
but  these  were  such  merely  inform.1  Defalcations  became  uni- 
versal owing  to  the  lack  of  administrative  control;  and,  as  one 
writer  puts  it,  "  Rome  perished  by  reason  of  her  finances.  "2 

About  the  time  of  Trajan  markets  increased  in  importance  from 
a  fiscal  point  of  view.  Fees  were  charged  for  admission,  for  per- 
mits to  occupy  stalls,  and  other  market  privileges.  At  the  time 
of  Constantine  we  find  fees  paid  for  license  to  carry  on  certain 
occupations.  This  system  once  established  was  extended  until,  at 
last,  fees  were  charged  for  the  privilege  of  carrying  on  almost 
every  known  art  and  trade. 

C.       PERIOD  OF  CHARLEMAGNE. 

The  tax  system  of  the  Romans  tended  to  disappear  among  the 
Franks,  and  was  gradually  replaced  by  the  toll-system,  which 
is  said  to  have  existed  in  Gaul  at  the  time  of  the  conquest.  A 
manuscript  of  the  year  681  names,  among  others,  the  following 
tolls:3  pulveraticus,  or  road-toll;  rotaticus,  wheel-toll;  ripiti- 
cus,  river- toll;  saumaticus,  toll  for  pack  animals;  and  so  on.* 
The  markets  of  the  period,  which  were  held  at  the  great  relig- 
ious or  church  gatherings  under  the  supervision  of  the  bishops,5 
and  at  the  royal  courts,  were  regulated  by  the  king,  who  col- 
lected market  fees  for  various  market  privileges.6  The  right  to 
coin  money  was  early  made  the  occasion  for  the  exaction  of  seign- 
iorage. This  was  often  collected  by  and  for  the  benefit  of  indi- 
viduals to  whom  the  king  granted  the  privilege.7     The  right  to 

^aboulaye,  Essai  sar  les  Finances  des  Itomains,  p.  62. 

2G.  Humbert,  Essai  sur  les  Finances  des  Bomains,  I,  pp.  166-167. 

3  Waitz,  IV,  46. 

4  Brunner,  Deutsche  Bechtsgeschichte,  II,  239. 

"  Waitz,  IV,  46,  92.  •  Waitz,  II,  47-58.  7  Waitz,  IV,  80-82. 


72  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

fish  and  hunt  were  at  first  privileges  attached  to  the  ownership 
or  possession  of  the  soil;  still  the  king  had  often  these  rights 
reserved  to  himself,  and  instances  are  not  wanting  where  he 
granted  these  rights  away  in  certain  localities  for  fixed  pay- 
ments. 1 

When  Charlemagne  had  consolidated  his  immense  empire,  he 
turned  his  attention  to  internal  improvements.  Bridges  were 
built,  roads  laid  out  and  improved,  lighthouses  established  on 
the  Gallic  coast,  harbors  and  dikes  were  made  and  repaired, 
and  even  a  canal  was  planned  and  begun,  from  the  Rhone  to  the 
Danube.  With  his  efficient  centralization  of  political  power,  he 
was  able  to  levy  and  collect  fees  for  the  use  of  these  improve- 
ments.2 In  time  the  repairs  were  required  to  be  made  by  the 
localities  while  the  fees  still  continued  to  be  collected  for  the 
king.  Pirates  were  brought  into  subjection  and  protection 
offered  to  merchants.  For  this  they  were  required  to  pay  fees 
roughly  proportioned  to  their  profits.  Jews  were  also  granted 
privileges  and  protection  by  a  sort  of  license,  Schutzbrief,  for 
which  they  were  charged  payments  in  the  nature  of  fees.3  The 
well-known  Wehrgeld  of  the  middle  ages  was  also  of  this  charac- 
ter.* Fees  for  protection  and  privileges  were  also  paid  by  mon- 
asteries and  individuals,  for  whom  the  king  appointed  one  of 
his  lieutenants  to  act  as  protector.  In  earlier  times  there  were 
even  two  protectors  appointed,  one  against  the  Goths  and  the 
other  against  the  Romans.  Each  was  supposed  to  be  recom- 
pensed for  their  services  by  their  proteges.* 

In  Charlemagne's  courts  of  justice,  presided  over  by  his  missi, 
or  local  counts,  the  presence  of  a  recording  scribe  or  clerk  was 
required  by  law.  He  was  appointed  by  the  missi,  and  the  court 
fees  collected  by  him  were  divided  between  the  judge,  the  notary, 
and  the  sheriff.  In  amount  these  fees  varied  according  to  local 
conditions.     The  fine  prescribed  by  the  capitularies  was  divided 

1  Waitz,  IV,  115.  aWaitz,  IV,  26. 

3  Waitz,  IV,  200-201;  II,  55,  3-4.  Payments  culled  Friedensgeld,  partly 
in  the  nature  of  fees  and  partly  in  the  nature  of  fines,  were  also  collected. 
Ibid.,  II,  535. 

4  Waitz,  IV,  275,  295. 

'  Brunner,  Deutsche  Bechtsgeschichte,  II,  51.    Waitz,  VI,  450-3. 


Ancient  and  Mediaeval  Europe.  73 

when  collected  between  the  state,  the  missi,  and  the  complain- 
ing witness.1  The  early  law  of  the  Franks  required  no  official 
recorder.  His  functions  were  performed  by  the  servant  or  clerk 
of  the  judge,  and  any  one  who  was  able  to  write  might  serve  in 
that  capacity.  As  a  result,  there  were  no  distinctively  public 
documents,  as  distinguished  from'private;  and  no  fee  or  action  of 
a  recorder  could  make  a  private  doeument  public.2  In  Italy, 
however,  the  clerk  or  recorder  became  early  a  part  of  the  court,  and 
was  just  as  necessary  to  its  existence  as  the  judge  himself.  The 
signature  of  the  clerk  gave  a  legal  sanction  to  every  document. 

D.   THE  TRANSITION  FROM  MEDIAEVAL  TO  MODERN  EUROPEAN  FEES. 

After  Charlemagne's  empire  went  to  pieces,  disintegration 
set  in  and  the  royal  prerogatives  and  other  vestiges  of  central- 
ized power  were  swept  away.  When  Europe  emerged  out  of 
the  Dark  Ages,  entirely  new  conditions  and  customs  had  been 
formed  and  crystallized,  and  scarcely  any  relics  of  the  past  could 
be  distinguished.  The  Feudal  Lord  who  had  absorbed  many  of 
the  powers  of  the  earlier  emperors  collected  all  he  could  get  for 
the  protection  he  afforded  his  dependents.  The  King,  or  sov- 
ereign, who  was  beginning  to  be  recognized  as  the  head  of  the 
state,  became  entitled  to  certain  lucurative  prerogatives  which 
were  in  the  nature  of  payments  for  diverse  privileges.  The 
treasures  of  the  earth  were  his,  and  he  might  therefore  charge 
a  sum  or  a  fee  for  the  privilege  of  mining.  The  game  in  the 
forest  and  the  fish  in  the  sea  were  his  property.  Privileges  to 
hunt  and  fish  were  thus  lucrative  prerogatives.  Similar  pay- 
ments were  made  for  using  public  harbors,  for  rights  to  trade,, 
and  numerous  other  privileges  which  belonged  to  the  regalia  of 
the  king.  Fees  were  paid  for  a  large  number  of  permits,  for 
pass-ports,8  for  permission  to  foreigners  to  work  at  trades,  to 
use  the  courts,  and  so  on. 

1  Altdeutsche  Beichs  und  Gerichtsverfassung,  1, 170.     Waitz,  IV,  144- 

2  Ibid,  p.  527. 

3  The  modern  passport  fee  was  originally  a  payment  for  a  personal  .escort 
furnished  by  the  lord,  or  the  king,  to  merchants  or  travelers  through  a 
country  which  was  supposed  to  be  unsafe .     At  first  right  to  furnish  such 


74  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

The  state  prescribed  what  weights  and  measures  should  be 
used,  and  possessed  the  standard  by  which  all  others  must  be 
gauged.1  Thus  we  find  "  tronage  "  collected  in  England  at  a 
very  early  date  from  all  foreigners  who  made  use  of  the  "Tron, " 
or  great  King's  beam.2  In  the  medieval  law  courts  many  fees 
and  charges  were  collected  which  have  either  disappeared  alto- 
gether, or  else  been  transformed  into  their  modern  equivalents. 
An  example  of  this  is  the  fee  long  known  as  "  epices  " 3  which 
originated  in  a  voluntary  contribution,  made  by  the  winning 
party  in  a  trial,  to  the  judges.  In  course  of  time  they  became 
so  customary  that  the  judges  regularly  demanded  and  collected 
their  epices  before  they  would  hear  any  case.  Innumerable  other 
fees,  or  rather  taxes,  of  this  kind  were  everywhere  collected  un- 
der various  pretences. 

There  is,  however,  one  class  of  fees,  the  influence  of  which  dur- 
ing the  middle  ages  was  so  important  that  it  requires  special 
mention.  This  class  includes  all  the  charges  made  by  the  var- 
ious trades  and  commercial  guilds  for  privileges  and  preferments. 
It  was  largely  by  means  of  these  heavy  fees  and  charges  that 
the  great  mediaeval  corporatioas  were  able  to  maintain  them- 
selves, and  prevent  the  number  of  master  workmen  from  becom- 
ing too  large.  Most  of  the  workmen  were  kept  as  apprentices 
in  a  subjection  little  better  than  slavery,  because  they  were  un- 
able to  raise  the  money  exacted  by  the  guilds  for  promotion. 
The  expenses  of  passing  from  apprenticeship  to  comradeship, 
and  from  comradeship  to  mastership,  were  enormous,  especially 
if  the  money  value  of  commodities  and  labor  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration. The  following  are  some  of  the  fees  collected  on 
such  occasions:*  a  royal  fee,  fee  for  registration,  reception  fee, 

escorts  belonged  to  the  lord,  as  a  territorial  privilege  belonging  to  the  soil. 
When  the  times  became  more  peaceful,  the  written  passport  took  the  place 
of  the  personal  escort,  and  the  gradually  increasing  power  of  the  king  led 
to  the  transfer  of  this  power  to  him.  Handworterbuch  der  Staatswis- 
senscahften,  Supplement,  1897. 

1  Waitz.  IV,    pp.  63-35. 

2  Ashley,  Eg.  Hist.  Eng.,  I,  21. 

3Cheruel,  Dictionnaire  de  V Institution,  p.  359. 
4Bianqui,  Hist.  Pol.  Econ.,  p.  186. 


Ancient  and  Mediaeval  Europe.  75 

police  fee,  fee  for  opening  shops,  honorary  fees  to  the  dean  and 
wardens,  payment  of  the  ushers  and  clerk  of  the  corporation, 
gratuities  to  the  masters  who  were  called  to  the  ceremony,  often 
also  fees  in  the  nature  of  bribes  to  the  judges. 

These  guilds,  however,  were  not  allowed  to  exercise  this 
power  for  nothing,  but  were  often  compelled  to  pay  huge  sums 
to  the  King  for  their  privileges.  In  the  same  way  the  great 
colonial  and  commercial  corporations  of  a  later  period  paid  large 
amounts  to  the  King  for  the  privilege  of  governing  and  often- 
times plundering  the  colonies.1  The  records  of  colonial  misgov- 
^rnment  show  that  these  opportunities  were  not  neglected. 

The  charges  which  indirectly  proved  perhaps  the  most  burden- 
some of  all,  were  the  license  fees  which  were  paid  for  exclusive 
rights  of  various  kinds,  usually  monopolies.  The  sovereign, 
always  in  need  of  money,  would  grant  for  a  fixed  sum  the  ex- 
clusive privilege  to  sell  or  manufacture,  or  trade  in  various 
articles.  Sometimes  these  privileges  were  granted  to  court 
favorites,  who  farmed  them  out  to  others;  and  the  latter  then 
extorted  as  much  as  possible  from  the  people  for  their  own  bene- 
fit. Many  of  these  licenses  became  of  immense  importance  and 
value.  It  is  reported  of  Louis  XIV  that  he  granted  a  privil- 
ege of  this  kind  to  a  courtier,  supposing  that  it  would  amount 
to  a  few  thousand  francs  at  most;  which,  when  investigated, 
was  found  to  yield  several  hundred  thousand  francs.  Numerous 
mediaeval  monopolies  were  a  direct  result  of  the  road,  bridge, 
and  river  tolls  levied  on  all  goods  transported  from  one  locality 
to  another.  These  tolls  were  often  so  numerous  and  large  as  to 
be  prohibitory,  and  consequently  an  exemption  from  their  pay- 
ment granted  by  the  sovereign  would  lead  to  the  establishment 
of  a  burdensome  monopoly.2 

:The  "  joyeux  avenement "  collected  at  the  coronation  of  each  king  of 
France  were  regarded  as  payments  for  the  continuance  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  held  by  the  people  under  the  former  king.  These  charges  origi- 
nated in  the  presents  which  in  earlier  times  were  given  at  the  coronation 
ceremonies. 

2  The  number  of  toll  places  on  the  Rhine  increased  from  nineteen,  at  the 
end  of  the  12th  century,  to  sixty-four  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth;  on  the 
Elbe  there  were  thirty -five  and  on  the  Danube,  in  Austria,   there  were 


76  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

Not  only  was  a  charge  made  for  every  service  or  activity  of 
the  state  or  its  servants  on  account  of  or  in  the  interest  of  any 
individual,  but  even  the  church  had  gradually  come  around  to 
the  doctrine  of  equivalents;  or,  in  other  words,  "No  service 
without  a  counter-service.  M1 

This  condition,  however,  was  not  attained  at  a  single  bound. 
Gradually  the  church  had  changed  from  the  primitive  simplicity 
when  it  refused  to  accept  any  lands  or  other  valuables,  except 
money,  until  the  time  when  it  would  accept  anything  of  value,, 
from  the  last  farthing  of  the  starving  beggar  to  the  wealth  and 
lands  of  a  dying  king.  Very  little  stress  was  laid  at  first  upon 
the  doctrine  of  equivalents,  but  soon  penances  or  pilgrimages 
came  to  be  prescribed  for  the  atonement  of  sin.  Little  by  little 
these  began  to  be  commuted  for  money  payments,  from  which 
it  is  only  a  step  to  the  absolute  power  of  the  church  to  absolve 
from  sin  and  its  consequences.  The  sale  of  indulgences  is  nothing 
but  a  payment  in  the  nature  of  a  fee  for  a  privilege  or  service. 
The  old  idea  of  voluntary  contributions  was  almost  entirely  dis- 
placed by  these  counter-payments  and  taxes.2 

The  enormous  revenues  of  the  Holy  See  were  largely  pay- 
ments of  this  kind  for  real  or  imaginary  privileges,  exemptions, 
and  dispensations.  State  and  church  offices  were  secured  only 
through  payment  of  huge  sums  of  money,  which  were  simply 
fees  collected  for  the  privileges  and  honors  conferred.  Although 
there  was  no  fixed  tariff  of  these  charges  in  Germany  during 
the  reign  of  Henry  V  still  no  political  or  ecclesiastical  office 
was  granted  without  obtaining  at  least  a  gift  from  the  individ- 
ual so  honored.3  Although  the  local  churches  or  their  repre- 
sentatives were  largely  supported  by  tithes   and   revenue  from 

seventy-seven  toll  places.  In  the  middle  of  the  14th  century  the  tolls 
collected  from  Bingen  to  Coblenz  amounted  to  67  per  cent,  of  the  value  of 
the  commodity  transported.  Handworterbuch  der  Staatswissenschaf- 
ten,  Supplement,  1897,  p.  943. 

1  For  a  short  account  of  church  revenues  see  Handworterbuch  der 
Staatswissenschaften,  IV,  677.     (Article  by  Edgar  Loening.) 

2  The  hearth  tax  in  England  and  the  "Denarius  St.  Petri"  in  Scandina- 
via were  originally  in  the  nature  of  fees,  but  became  burdensome  taxes. 

8Waitz,  VIII,  p.409. 


Fees  in  England.  77 

domains,  fees   or  charges  of  this  character  still  were  not  neg- 
lected.    Charges  graded  sometimes  according  to  the   rank   and  j 
ability  of  the  payer,    sometimes   fixed   for   each   locality,    were  / 
paid  for  baptisms,  marriages,  burials,  masses,  and  other  church 
rituals  and  ceremonies. 

The  last  category  of  fees  was  retained  even  after  the  Refor- 
mation,  and  exists  in  most  civilized  countries  at  the  present 
time.1  As  the  division  between  the  church  and  state  becomes 
more  marked,  the  tendency  has  been  for  the  latter  to  take  over 
a  great  part  of  these  administrative  functions,  and  collect  the 
fees  for  the  same.  This  change  is  still  going  on,  and  though 
gradual  can  be  observed  even  now  in  most  civilized  counties. 


CHAPTER  III. 


SOME    TYPICAL    ENGLISH    FEES;    THEIR    ORIGIN    AND    DE- 
VELOPMENT. 

A.       LIQUOR    LICENSE    FEES. 

At  common  law,  permission  to  sell  liquor  was  not  a  privi- 
lege, but  a  right  which  could  be  exercised  by  anyone,  without 
state  interference;  nor  was  drunkenness  a  punishable  offense 
until  the  time  of  James  I.  During  the  early  reign  of  the  Tudors, 
there  was  a  steady  increase  of  tippling,  accompanied  by  abuses 
and  disorders,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  hostelries  and  ale- 
house were  places  of  resort  for  playing  dice,  quoits,  and  other 
forbidden  games.2  The  number  of  vagrants  and  idlers  had  in- 
creased enormously,  owing  to  the  disbanding  of  the  army  of 
Henry  VII,  and  the  breaking  up  of  monastic  establishments. 
It  was  found  necessary  to  exercise  some  sort  of  control  over 
ale-houses;   so   in   1503    we   find   power  given    to    two    magis- 

1  Handworterbuch  der  Staatswissensohaften,  IV,  674. 

2  Dowell,  History  of  Taxation  in  England,  IV,  90. 


78  Urdahl— Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

trates  in  each  parish  to  suppress  them  or  to  grant  licenses,  on 
receiving  bond  from  the  keeper  for  the  maintenance  of  good 
order.  Stringent  laws  against  tippling  were  also  enacted.  But 
drunkenness  continued  to  increase.  So  in  1710  a  so-called  stamp 
duty  of  Is  was  imposed  on  each  victualler's  license.  Gradually 
the  license  fee  was  increased,  until  in  1815  in  amounted  to  4£ 
4s.  But  it  was  found  that  this  charge  bore  too  heavily  on  the 
lower  class  of  houses;  therefore  a  change  was  made  which  grad- 
uated the  license  according  to  the  rating  or  assessed  valuation 
of  the  house  in  which  the  liquor  was  sold.  The  charge  ranged 
from  2£  2s  for  a  house  rated  at  less  than  15£,  to  4£  4s  for  one 
rated  over  20£.  None  of  these  licenses  permitted  the  sale  of 
wine,  which  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  confined  entirely  to 
the  taverns  as  distinguished  from  the  ale-houses.  The  regula- 
tion of  these  did  not  begin  till  1553,  when  it  was  found  neces- 
sary to  demand  a  magisterial  license,  because  of  the  increased 
consumption  of  wine  and  "  the  great  numbers  of  taverns  set  up 
in  back  lanes,  corners,  and  suspicious  places. "  The  power  to 
license  was  given  to  local  authorities,  but  the  number  of  licenses 
which  might  be  issued  in  each  town  was  limited  by  law.  The 
crown,  however,  continued  to  hold  and  exercise  its  prerogative 
of  licensing  taverns,  until  after  the  restoration ;  and,  further- 
more, the  two  Universities  and  one  or  two  corporate  towns 
possessed  the  right  as  one  of  their  ancient  privileges,  the  rev- 
enue from  which  went  to  the  support  of  the  schools. 

In  1710  a  fee  was  levied  in  the  form  of  a  stamp,  costing  4s, 
which  was  required  to  be  affixed  to  all  licenses,  no  matter  by 
whom  granted.  The  charges  or  fees  for  licenses  were  increased 
from  time  to  time  up  to  1757,  when  the  retail  license  was  fixed 
at  5£.  From  this  time  on,  all  liquor  licenses  became  more  and 
more  interrelated.  The  various  kinds  became  differentiated, 
and  distinct,  and  the  amounts  paid  are  increased,  so  that  in 
1825  a  dealer's  license  would  cost  10£,  and  a  victualler's  4£  4s. 
Uniformity  was  also  attained  between  England,  Ireland,  and 
Scotland.  Regulation  was  no  longer  the  only  consideration. 
Revenue,  foreign  policy,  and  commercial  relations  all  influenced 
the  amount  and  character  of  the  charges. 

In  1840  the   license  charges  were  classified  according  to  the 


Fees  in  England.  79 

size  of  the  town,  or  population  of  the  county;  while  in  1870  the 
amount  varied :  first,  according  to  the  annual  value  of  the  house ; 
second,  according  to  the  kind  of  liquor  sold;  third,  according 
to  the  quantity  sold  at  the  time;  and  fourth,  according  to  the 
place,  whether  a  theater,  steamboat,  railroad,  and  so  on.  Thi& 
process  went  on  until,  in  1888,  there  were  no  less  than  twenty - 
four  distinct  kinds  of  liquor  licenses,  many  of  them  varying  ac- 
cording to  the  rental  value  of  the  premises.1 

The  change  in  the  period  for  which  licenses  were  granted  is 
just  as  marked.  At  first  it  was  indeterminate,  subject  only  to 
the  revocation  by  the  licensing  authority.  Then  they  were 
granted  for  not  more  than  twenty-one  years,  and  finally,  in  1757, 
were  made  annual.  The  qualification  and  requirements  of  the 
licenses  tended  to  become  more  and  more  stringent  up  to  1830, 
when  it  was  provided  that  no  beer  license  should  be  granted  ex- 
cept on  certificate  of  good  character,  signed  by  six  taxpayers 
of  the  parish  and  certified  by  the  overseer. 

B.       PEDDLERS. 

Shortly  after  it  had  been  found  necessary  to  regulate  the  sale 
of  liquor  by  means  of  licenses,  the  same  restrictions  were  ap- 
plied to  peddlers.  The  same  process  of  evolution  took  place  in 
the  latter  as  in  the  former  case.  The  first  licenses  were  granted 
free  of  charge,  and  needed  only  the  signature  of  two  justices  of 
the  peace  to  make  them  valid.  Soon,  however,  a  fee  was  col- 
lected for  the  privilege  by  the  state,  which  was  increased  until 
in  1697  it  amounted  to  4£  for  each  peddler  and  4£  extra  for  a 
beast  of  burden.  These  charges  with  slight  modifications  con- 
tinued in  force  for  nearly  a  century.  When  Pitt  imposed  his 
shop  tax  in  1785,  he  also  doubled  the  license  charge  for  peddling. 
This  charge  was  so  high  as  to  materially  reduce  the  number 
of  licenses;  hence  in  1789  the  fee  was  lowered  to  the  former 
amount.  At  this  time  the  hawkers  seem  to  have  acquired  a  bad 
reputation  for  selling  contraband  goods  and  smuggling.  Incon- 
sequence an  act  was  passed  which  required  from  every  applicant 
for  license  a  certificate  of  character,  signed  by  the  clergyman  of 

1  Dowell,  II,  205. 


80  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

his  home  parish  and  two  reputable  residents.  As  the  peddler 
became  of  less  and  less  importance,  the  charge  was  reduced  to 
2£  for  license  to  peddle  on  foot,  and  4£  to  peddle  with  a  beast 
of  burden. 

C.       HACKNEY-COACHES. 

Another  occupation  which  early  came  under  the  direct  legis- 
lative control  of  parliament,  was  that  of  running  hackney- 
coaches.  After  the  custom  of  standing  them  for  hire  had  be- 
come firmly  established,  these  vehicles  became  so  numerous  as 
to  seriously  endanger  the  passenger  and  impede  the  cart-traffic 
in  the  narrow  streets  of  London.1  To  remedy  this  an  order  was 
issued  by  the  council  limiting  the  number  which  might  be  al- 
lowed, and  in  1637  a  license  was  required  to  be  obtained  from 
the  king's  master-of-horse.  No  toll  was  required  until  the  act 
of  1694  was  passed,  regulating  the  fees  which  might  be  collected, 
and  requiring  the  owner  of  each  hackney-coach  to  pay  50£  for  a 
license  for  twenty-one  years.  The  total  number  was  limited  to 
seven  hundred,  which  practically  created  a  monopoly  of  the 
business.  Subsequently  annual  rentals  were  imposed  and  the 
number  increased  until  there  were  one  thousand  licenses  in  force 
in  1777.  This  continued  up  to  1831,  when  free-trade  in  hack- 
ney-coaches was  introduced.  High  licenses  were  however  soon 
re-introduced  and  remained  in  force  until  the  act  of  1869  was 
passed,  which  charged  2£  2s  for  four  wheeled  and  15s  for  two- 
weeeled  vehicles.2 

D.       OTHER  LICENSES. 

Most  of  the  other  English  license  charges  are  comparatively 
modern,3  having  been  introduced  either  by  Pitt  or  his  success- 
ors. Many  of  them  were  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
revenue  rather  than  for  regulation.  Of  the  latter  may  be  men- 
tioned the  dog-license,  as  distinguished  from  early  dog-taxes. 
This  regulation  was  the  result  of  the  hydrophobia  panic  in  Lon- 

1  Dowell,  III,  42. 
2Dowell,  III,  45. 

3  Some  early  licenses  were  granted  by  the  crown,  and  fees  collected  there- 
for.   Hall,  History  of  Customs  Revenue  in  England,  pp.  25  and  26. 


Fees  in  England.  81 

don  in  the  hot  summers  of  1864  and  1865.1  At  that  time  Lon- 
don was  literally  overrun  with  dogs,  many  of  them  ownerless, 
running  at  large  in  the  streets  and  public  parks.  People  were 
in  mortal  terror  of  being  bitten,  and  feared  to  allow  their  chil- 
dren to  go  outside  of  the  home  inclosure.  To  give  the  police 
power  to  kill  these  wild  dogs  and  make  the  owners  responsible 
for  the  rest,  a  license  fee  of  5s  was  required  to  be  paid  by  the 
owner  for  each  dog.  When  once  introduced  it  continued  in 
force  with  slight  changes  down  to  the  present  time. 

The  game  license,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term,  is  another 
of  Pitt's  regulative  measures.  Although  there  had  been  game 
laws  as  early  as  1389,  the  object  of  which  was  "  to  prevent  arti- 
ficers, laborers,  servants,  and  grooms  "  from  going  hunting 
while  "  good  Christian  people  were  at  church, "  these  early  acts 
simply  required  property  qualifications  for  obtaining  a  game  li- 
cense; while  Pitt's  act  of  1784  imposed  a  fee  of  £2  2s  for  each 
annual  license  issued.  This  was  primarily  intended  to  affect 
only  "  gentlemen;"  2  but  these  were  able  to  evade  it,  making 
good  use,  however,  of  the  penalties  imposed  to  punish  poachers. 
Licenses  were  also  required  of  bankers,  doctors,  barristers,  con- 
veyancers, proctors,  auctioneers,  pawnbrokers,  jewellers,  and 
others.  These  were  very  largely,  although  not  exclusively,  im- 
posed for  revenue.3  At  present  the  most  important  sources  of 
fees  in  England,  from  a  fiscal  standpoint,  are  the  following: 
harbors,  light-houses,  bridges  and  ferries,  turnpikes,  trusts, 
markets  and  fairs,  and  the  Bank  of  England.4 

E.       ENGLISH  COURT,   OR  ADMINISTRATION,    PEES. 

The  most  significant  part  of  the  English  fee-system  to  the 
student  of  American  institutions,  whether  viewed  from  the  his- 
torical, economic,  or  political  point  of  view,  is  perhaps  the  court, 
or  more  broadly  speaking,  the  administrative  fees.  The  origin 
of  these  is  doubtless  identical  with  the  origin  of  the  English  ju- 
dicial system.     In  the   latter   half  of   the   seventeenth   century 

1  Buxton,  II,  84. 

2  Ibid.,  1,284. 

*  Statistical  Abstract  of  United  Kingdom,  1893. 
4  Buxton,  II,  205. 
6 


82  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

the  direct  collection  of  court  fees  was  displaced  by  the  use  of 
stamps.  At  first  they  were  confined  to  only  a  few  instruments, 
their  cost  depending  upon  the  length  of  the  document,  as  meas- 
ured by  the  number  of  skins  required.  In  order  to  protect  the 
revenue,  however,  the  number  of  words  to  the  skin  was  limited 
by  law,  and  the  prolix  legal  verbiage  was  not  allowed  to  be  cur- 
tailed. One  of  the  consequences  of  this  was  the  abominable 
style  of  all  early  legal  documents,  and  its  effects  may  doubtless 
be  seen  in  the  legal  phraseology  of  to-day.  During  the  next  one 
hundred  years  the  stamp-fee  system  was  extended,  not  only  to  all 
official  or  judicial  documents,  but  also  to  many  semi-official  in- 
struments, such  as  bills  of  exchange,  promissory  notes,  leases, 
mortgages,  transfers,  and  so  on. 

The  judicial  fees  made  it  in  the  interest  of  magistrates  and 
attorneys  to  delay  and  appeal  and  continue  all  cases  as  long  as 
possible;  and  it  was  thus  largely  through  their  influence,  that 
the  law  courts  of  England  became  a  mere  mockery  of  justice, 
and  remained  such  for  centuries.  It  was  on  account  of  the  Eng- 
lish legal  fee-system,  perverted  by  the  courts  into  a  system  of 
oppression,  that  Bentham  directed  his  protest  against  law  taxes. 
It  was  against  the  iniquities  and  abuses  of  this  system,  that 
Dickens  wrote  his  Bleak  House,  which  opened  the  eyes  of  the 
public  to  the  actual  condition  of  the  administration  of  justice. 

F.       CONCLUSION. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  evolution  of  the  English  license  fee- 
system  may  be  said  to  be  as  follows :  — 

At  first  regulation  was  undertaken  by  the  state  without  any 
charge.  Then  a  system  of  licenses  was  required,  and  a  small 
fee  was  charged  for  the  clerical  work  of  making  them  out  and 
recording.  Gradually  this  fee  was  increased,  sometimes  to  cor- 
respond to  the  value  of  the  services  granted;  sometimes  it  be- 
came a  tax  levied  purely  for  revenue,  and,  in  the  end,  it 
frequently  became  so  high  as  to  be  evaded  or  even  openly  op- 
posed by  the  people.  The  fee  was  then  reduced,  either  on  ac- 
count of  its  unpopularity,  or  because  the  point  of  diminishing 
returns  had  been  reached.  Either  extreme  usually  leads  to  a 
reduction    in   the  size  of   the   fees,   and   this   usually   fixes   the 


The  French  Fee  System.  83 

amount  as  it  exists  in  the  English  legislation  at  present. 
Changes  are  of  course  in  progress  even  now,  but  they  are  so 
slow  as  to  be  scarcely  noticeable. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE   FRENCH  FEE   SYSTEM. 


The  origin  and  development  of  the  fee  system  of  France  re- 
quires special  attention  and  study.  In  no  other  place  has  this 
source  of  public  income  been  so  much  exploited  and  utilized  as 
here.  In  no  other  state  does  it  play  so  important  a  role  in  the 
system  of  finance,  and  in  no  other  country  has  the  "  art  of  taxa- 
tion, "  by  means  of  numerous  and  heavy  charges,  originally  in 
the  nature  of  fees,  been  so  well  developed. 

A.       DROITS    D'ENRSGISTREMENT. 

The  charges  comprehended  under  the  term  registration  fees, 
are  undoubtedly  the  most  numerous  and  important  category  in 
the  French  fee-system.  In  fact  they  may  in  a  certain  sense  be 
looked  upon  as  a  distinctive  product  of  the  French  civilization. 
Historically  these  charges  are  said  to  date  back  to  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  who  required  certain  documents,  official  acts,  and 
the  like  to  be  filed  with,  or  preserved  by,  some  public  officer.1 
The  book  or  place  where  these  records  were  kept  was  called  in 
Latin  "  Regesta, "  from  which  we  have  the  word  register.  At 
first  these  registration  charges  represented  simply  the  expense 
of  maintaining  the  comptroller,  or  official,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
ascertain  the  date  and  nature  of  the  document  presented  for 
registration.  The  necessity  for  such  control  in  France  grew  out 
of  the  frequent  deceptions  and  frauds  which  were  practiced,  es- 
pecially by  means  of  ante-dating  or  otherwise  changing  the 
dates  of  documents.  It  was  therefore  originally  undertaken  in 
the  interest  of  individuals  or  families,  to  secure  the  priority  of 

JParieu  traces  them  back  to  the  tenth  century. —  III,  105. 


84  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

mortgages' and  authenticity  to  these  and  other  documents,  espec- 
ially to  their  dates.  Registration  did  not,  however,  become  a  state 
institution  until  1539, 1  when  Francis  I  required  all  sales  and 
transfers  of  real  estate  to  be  reported  to  an  official,  who  was 
empowered  to  collect    and  fix  charges    or  fees  for  this  service.2 

But  the  original  purpose  of  the  charge  was  soon  lost  sight  of, 
and  it  became  simply  a  means  of  deception,  or  subterfuge,  for 
the  collection  of  heavy fcand  oftentimes,  progressive  taxes.3 

Other  charges,  which  apparently  were  of  the  same  nature, 
were  collected  under  various  names.  Among  others  may  be 
mentioned  the  "Droits  d'Ensaisinement",  "Droits  de  Reserve", 
"Droits  de  Nouvel  Acquit",  "Droit  d'Insinuation, "  all  of  which 
were  charged  for  the  same  ostensible  purpose,  and  yielded  con- 
siderable revenue,  both  to  the  royal  exchequer  and  to  the  collec- 
tors. An  act  of  1722  fixed  a  new  tariff  of  charges  for  these 
services,  which  tariff  remained  in  force  down  to  the  Revolu- 
tion. This  law  distinguished  between  fixed  and  proportionate 
fees.  The  fixed  charges  varied  in  amount  according  to  the  rank 
of  the  parties  concerned,  as  in  marriage  contracts;  often  also 
according  to  the  nature  and  size  of  the  document.  Much  injust- 
ice resulted  from  the  fact  that  most  of  these  fees  were  collected 
under  obscure,  incomplete,  and  in  many  cases,  arbitrary  laws 
and  rules,  which  were  interpreted  by  the  collectors  to  suit  their 
own  interests.  The  worst  abuse,  however,  may  perhaps  be 
ascribed  to  the  vicious  system  of  farming  the  offices  out  to 
subordinates  for  fixed  sums.  But,  aside  from  the  illegal  ex- 
tortions which  this  resulted  in,  the  legitimate  and  regular 
working  of  the  law  was  such,  that  the  fees  —  more  especially 
the  proportionate  fees  —  bore  more  heavily  upon  the  poorer 
classes  than  upon  the  nobles  and  the  clergy.* 

The  modern  French  legislation  on  the  subject  of  registration 
may  be  said  to  date  back  to  1790,  when  all  these  heterogeneous 
elements  were  united  into  one  great  category  called  "Enregist- 
rement. "     The  same  edict  extended  the  scope  of  the  subject,   in 

1  Clamageran,  Histoire  de  VImpdts,  III,  R. 
2Cheruel,  Dictionnaire,  I,  353,  506. 
3Parieu,  II,  105-106;  Vuitry,  I,  462. 
4Parieu,  III,  108. 


The  French  Fee  System.  85 

that  it  required  all  acts  of  notaries  and  other  court  officials  to 
be  registered,  and  fees  to  be  paid  for  the  same.  Furthermore, 
the  whole  general  subject  was  divided  into  three  great  classes. 
The  first  class  was  made  to  include  all  acts  or  documents  which 
concerned  or  dealt  with  known  values,  and  the  fee  for  registra- 
tion was  made  proportional  to  the  value.  The  second  contained 
all  acts  concerning  objects  or  matters  having  no  definitely- 
ascertained  value,  such  as  marriage  contracts,  wills,  and  the 
like.  The  charge  on  these  was  graded  in  amount,  according  to 
the  income  of  the  contacting  parties,  which  in  turn  was  esti- 
mated according  to  the  value  of  their  place  of  habitation.  The 
last  class  included  all  merely  formal  acts,  on  which  fixed 
charges  were  levied.  This  classification  has  remained  essentially 
the  same  down  to  the  present  day,1  but  the  administrative  ma- 
chinery has  been  improved,  especially  during  the  revolutionary 
period.  A  Director  General  was  then  for  the  first  time  placed 
in  charge  of  all  verifiers,  receivers,  inspectors,  directors,  and 
other  officials  scattered  over  the  various  localities.2  This 
centralized  control  and  direct  responsibility  of  subordinates  to 
superiors  has  resulted  in  the  efficient  and  economical  adminis- 
tration of  the  entire  system. 

The  edict  of  1789  created  greater  regularity  and  uniformity 
among  the  different  charges  than  had  ever  existed  before,  but 
was  soon  followed  by  a  whole  series  of  changes,  among  the  most 
important  of  which  is  the  abolition  of  the  antiquated  and  use- 
less feudal  dues.  The  registration  fees  have  been  gradually  in- 
creased, with  the  avowed  purpose  of  increasing  the  receipts,  un- 
til the  enregistrement  has  become  recognized  in  France  as  one  of 
the  most  important  sources  of  revenue.  The  system  has  been 
extended,  until  it  includes  almost  every  legal  and  extra-legal 
document  and  contract.  In  fact  every  document  is  supposed  to 
be  registered,  unless  it  is  expressly  declared  exempt  in  the  law. 
New  objects  of  registration  have  gradually  been  added  to  the 
list  and  new  methods  of  measuring  charges  have  been  adopted. 
As  an  example  may  be  cited  the  fees  for  registration  of  articles 

1  Block,  Dictionnaire,  p.  1013. 

2  Parieu,  III,  110-134. 


86  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

of  incorporation,  which,  at  first  the  same  for  all,  were  by  the 
act  of  1872  made  proportional  to  the  amount  of  capital  stock. 
At  the  present  time  the  fixed  fees  vary  from  one-half  to  one 
hundred  francs,  according  to  the  nature  and  importance  of  a 
document.  In  this  category  may  be  mentioned  powers  of  attor- 
ney, receipts,  protests,  marriage  contracts,  transfers  of  prop- 
erty, and  so  on.  Preportional  fees  are  usually  based  upon  the 
face  value  of  the  document,  and  vary  from  one-tenth  of  one  per 
cent,   to  ten  and  one  half  per  cent. 

Among  other  fees  classed  with  the  enregistrement  are  the 
charges  made  for  grants  of  nobility,  naturalization  decrees,  per- 
mits to  foreigners,  for  impressions  of  the  state  seal,  and  the  like. 
These  "  Droits  de  Sceau, "  as  they  are  called,  have  been  in  use 
from  very  early  times;  and  are  based  on  the  principle,  that  acts 
emanating  from  a  judicial  authority  should  be  provided  with  the 
seal  of  that  authority  before  they  are  executed.  The  following 
acts,  among  others,  require  the  state  seal  to  make  them  valid: 
letters  of  transmission  or  confirmation  of  title,  certificates  of 
majority,  acts  concerning  changes  of  name,  naturalization,  ad- 
mission to  domicile,  marriage  dispensations,  and  the  like. 

The  income  to  the  state  from  registration  charges  has  in- 
creased with  marvelous  rapidity.  The  total  annual  receipts  be- 
fore the  Revolution  have  been  estimated  at  twenty  million  francs, 
and  the  cost  of  collection  averaged  about  thirteen  per  cent,  j1 
while  in  1891  the  revenue  from  this  source  reached  the  enor- 
mous sum  of  five  hundred  and  forty-four  million  francs.  The 
significance  of  these  figures  lies  mainly  in  the  fact  that  almost 
all  of  these  charges  originated  as  fees,  but  have  gradually  been 
increased  until  many  of  them  are  pure  taxes. 

B.       FRENCH    LICENSE    FEES. 

Although  some  of  the  so-called  registration  fees  are  in  reality 
license  fees,  still  there  is  another  distinct  class  of  charges  which 
may  properly  be  placed  in  this  category.  The  edict  of  1577 2  is 
the  first  law  which  required  wholesale  and   retail  dealers  in  in- 

1  Handworterbuch,  der  Staattswissenschaften,  V,  378. 

2  Parieu,  II,  273-274.  Block,  Dictionnaire  de  V Administration,  p.  1412. 


The  French  Fee  System.  87 

toxicating  liquors  to  obtain  a  license  before  they  could  carry 
on  their  traffic.  According  to  this  law  the  fee  or  license  charge 
was  paid  once  for  all;  and  was  not  collected  periodically,  as  is 
usually  the  case  at  present.  The  transition  to  the  system  of 
annual  licenses,  based  upon  the  annual  payment  of  the  license 
fee,  took  place  about  1630 ;*  when  a  law  was  passed  which  re- 
quired all  brewers  and  dealers  in  wine,  cider,  perry,  and  other 
drinks  to  pay  a  fee  annually  and  obtain  a  license. 

Before  1789  the  fee  collected  from  saloons  and  similar  resorts 
was  very  small,  its  principal  object  being  to  determine  the  ex- 
istence and  location  of  the  places  which  especially  required  po- 
lice supervision  and  surveillance.  Many  of  the  charges  were 
levied  by  local  authorities  and  were  therefore  widely  different, 
being  continually  subject  to  change.  But  there  were  a  great 
many  extra  fees  which  had  to  be  paid  before  the  privilege  sought 
for  could  be  obtained;  among  others  may  be  mentioned  the 
gaugers'  fees,  liquor  inspection  fees,  and  others  of  the  same 
nature.  The  revenues  from  these  were  generally  farmed  out, 
and,  as  a  result,  these  extras  often  amounted  to  more  than  the 
license  fee  proper.3 

All  these  charges  were  abolished  during  the  Revolution,  but 
re-appeared  soon  after  under  their  modern  appellation,  "  Droits 
de  license,  •  which  were  at  first  required  only  of  distillers.  The 
law  of  1814  placed  brewers  under  the  same  requirement,  and  in 
the  following  year  saloon  keepers 3  were  also  required  to  pay  an 
annual  license  fee  for  the  privilege  of  selling  liquors.  The  license 
however  soon  lost  the  character  of  permission  or  authorization 
which  had  at  first  been  attributed  to  it.  A  law  passed  in  1851 
made  the  grant  of  the  license  depend  upon  the  assent  of  the  pre- 
fect; but  this  provision  was  repealed  in  1880.  At  present  the 
most  important  condition  to  be  fulfilled  is  the  payment  of  the 
fee,  which  varies  in  amount  according  to  the  kind  of  business. 
The  brewer's  license  fee  depends  upon  the  department  in  which 
it  is  located,  and  runs  from  sixty  to  one  hundred  francs;  while 
the  fee  for  liquor  sellers'  licenses  is  graduated  according  to  the 

1  Say,  Dictionnaire  de  Finances,  II,  468. 

2  Clamageran,  Histoiri  de  VImpdt  en  France,  III,  75. 

3  Ibid.,  I,  417. 


88  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

population  of  the  commune  in  which  the  business  is  to  be  con- 
ducted. The  minimum  fee  of  twelve  francs  is  charged  in  com- 
munes having  a  population  of  four  thousand  or  less;  and  in  com- 
munes whose  population  is  less  than  six  thousand,  the  fee  is 
sixteen  francs.  The  fee  gradually  increases  with  the  population 
up  to  forty  francs,  which  is  charged  in  all  places  having  a  popu- 
lation of  over  fifty  thousand.  Wholesale  liquor  dealers  pay  a 
fee  of  one  hundred  francs;  and  distillers'  license  fees  vary  from 
twenty  to  one  hundred  francs,  according  to  the  population  of 
the  communes.  The  total  receipts  from  all  brewers'  and  dealers' 
licenses  amounted  in  1889  to  9,514,482  francs.  One  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  French  liquor  license  legislation  is  that  the 
fee  is  charged  for  all  restaurants,  hotels,  etc.,  whether  intoxi- 
cating liquors  are  sold  or  not,  hence  is  not  confined  to  the  liquor 
traffic. 

A  law  dated  April  28,  1816,  required  all  manufacturers  of 
playing  cards  to  obtain  a  license  and  pay  a  fee,  and  three  years 
later  an  act  was  passed  which  granted  the  right  to  manufacture 
sulphur  on  payment  of  a  fee  of  twenty-five  francs.  Before  that 
time  the  state  had  a  monopoly  of  the  business  of  manufacturing 
gunpowder.  In  1837  another  act  was  passed,  which  compelled 
each  refiner  and  manufacturer  of  sugar  to  obtain  a  license  at  a 
cost  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  francs,  and  in  1873  the 
same  provision  was  extended  to  manufacturers  of  vinegar  and 
acetic  acid,  with  the  exception  that  the  license  fee  was  only 
twelve  and  one  half  francs. 

Another  business  which  has  long  been  subject  to  license  regu- 
lations is  the  carrying  trade,  whether  on  the  public  highways  or 
on  private  railroads.  The  first  act  dates  back  to  1817,  and  con- 
tinued in  force  down  to  1873;  when  an  amendment  was  passed 
which  gauged  the  fee  according  to  the  number  and  kind  of  vehi- 
cles employed.  Railroads  were  required  to  pay  6.25  francs  per 
car,  as  were  other  four-wheeled  vehicles,  while  two-wheeled 
carts  pay  only  2.25  francs  each.  These  charges  are  very  much 
lower  than  those  collected  under  the  old  law.  Dray  and  freight 
wagons  are  also  required  to  obtain  a  license  and  pay  two  francs 
each  year  for  a  plate,  which  must  be  nailed  on  a  conspicuous 
place  on  the  wagon. 


The  French  Fee  System.  89 

C.      DROITS  DE  VISITE    (DROGUE   ET  tfPICE). 

These  fees  are  collected  to  cover  the  expenses  of  the  annual 
inspection  of  drug  and  spice  stores,  in  order  to  test  the  quality 
of  goods  offered  for  sale.  This  inspection  has  been  required 
from  a  very  early  period.  A  decree  dated  August,  1536,  placed 
this  duty  upon  the  doctors  of  the  faculty  of  medicine  in  the 
University  of  Paris,  but  no  record  can  be  found  of  any  fees  col- 
lected for  this  service.  During  the  Revolution  another  act  was 
passed,  which  required  all  pharmacists  and  druggists  to  submit  to 
aperiodic  inspection;  and  subsequent  consular  decree  compelled 
the  payment  of  a  fee  for  each  visit  of  the  inspector.  The  receipts 
from  this  source  went  to  the  support  of  the  inspectors  in  each  de- 
partment. The  result  was,  that  the  receipts  exceeded  the  ex- 
penditures or  cost  of  the  service  in  some  places,  while  in  others 
there  were  large  deficits,  which  the  consul  general  refused  to 
make  up.  It  naturally  followed  that  the  law  was  badly  executed 
in  many  places.  To  remedy  this  state  of  affairs  a  new  law  was 
enacted  in  1866,  which  requires  all  the  fees  to  be  paid  into  the 
state  treasury,  out  of  which  all  the  expenditures  under  this  head 
for  the  entire  country  were  taken. 

At  present  each  pharmacy  is  required  to  pay  six  francs  per 
visit  and  each  druggist  or  dealer  in  spices  pays  four  francs. 
The  inspection  is  undertaken  in  the  interest  of  public  health, 
and  is,  therefore,  in  essence  a  sanitary  measure. 

D.       DROITS  DE  INSPECTION  DE  FABRIQUES  ET  DEPOTS   D'EAUX  MINER- 
ALES. 

The  inspection  of  mineral  waters  is  another  sanitary  measure 
which  dates  back  to  the  old  regime  in  France.  In  1823  an  ordi- 
nance was  passed  to  the  effect  that  ail  manufacturies  and  reposi- 
tories of  mineral  waters  must  be  inspected  at  least  once  a  year. 
The  fees  collected  for  this  were  likewise  a  part  of  the  revenues 
of  the  departments  at  first,  but  were  afterwards  transferred  to 
the  state  treasury.  After  numerous  laws  and  decrees  regard- 
ing the  amount  which  might  be  collected,  the  fees  were  finally 
abolished  and  the  office  made  unsalaried;  as  it  was  understood 
that  the  reputation  which  appointment  to  this  position  con- 
ferred on  a  physician,  was  sufficient  reward. 


90  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

E.       VERIFICATION  OF  WEIGHTS    AND  MEASURES. 

This  service  was  of  very  great  importance  during  the  intro- 
duction of  the  metric  system  after  the  Revolution.  In  amount 
the  fees  vary  from  five  centimes  to  five  francs,  according  to  the 
size  or  quality  of  the  scale  or  measure  to  be  inspected.  The 
system  is  centralized  and  uniform  for  the  entire  country.  The 
inspectors  are  paid  salaries  and  the  fees  are  turned  over  into 
the  treasury.  The  scales  and  measures  are  required  to  be 
inspected  each  year,  every  commune  or  department  having  one 
or  more  regular  inspectors  to  perform  this  service. 

F.  DROITS   DE  GAR ANTIE. " 

These  are  assayers'  fees,  or  charges  made  for  ascertaining  the 
amount  and  quality  of  metal  contained  in  objects  made  of  gold 
or  silver.  The  first  edict,  dated  1579,  provided  for  this  service 
and  established  the  fees,  which  were  at  that  time  termed  "de 
remede. "  The  revenue  from  this  source  was  farmed  out,  which 
made  the  charges  very  obnoxious  to  the  people,  more  especially 
because  the  assayers  had  the  right  to  enter  and  examine  the 
houses  and  factories  of  merchants  and  jewellers.  In  1791  the 
whole  system  was  abolished  and  freedom  of  trade  established  in 
gold  and  silver  wares.  But  the  numerous  abuses  which  this 
resulted  in,  and  the  important  source  of  revenue  which  the 
state  found  itself  deprived  of,  soon  led  to  the  reintroduction  of 
the  old  system  with  its  compulsion.  The  act  of  1873  is  the 
basis  of  the  present  legislation  on  the  subject.  The  fees  vary  ac- 
cording to  the  amount,  quality,  and  kind  of  metal  contained  in 
the  object  inspected,  namely  37.50  francs  per  hectogramme  of 
gold  and  two  francs  per  hectogramme  of  silver.  The  total 
revenue  derived  from  these  fees  in  1888  amounted  to  4,611,531 
francs. 

G.  FRENCH     POSTAL    FEES.2 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  French  postal  system  took  its 
origin  from  the  system  of  messengers  which  the  University   of 

1  Parieu,  III,  423.    Say,  Dictionnaire  des  Finances,  p.  306. 
2Parieu,  111,281. 


The  French  Fee  System.  91 

Paris  established  in  the  thirteenth  century.  These  messengers 
were  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  letters  and 
merchandise  of  the  professors  and  the  students  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  Paris.  These  messengers,  however,  soon  carried  mail 
for  others  also,  and,  protected  by  royal  favor,  the  system  grew 
into  a  great  monopoly,  from  which  the  University  derived  con- 
siderable revenue.  In  1546  Louis  XI  issued  an  edict,  estab- 
lishing regular  postal  stations,  with  relays  for  messengers,  thus 
creating  a  state  postal  system,  which  competed  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent with  the  University  messengers.  This  continued  up  to 
1673,  when  the  University  was  given  an  annual  indemnity  in 
lieu  of  the  revenues  from  this  source.  From  this  time  on,  the 
state  had  a  monopoly  of  the  business,  which  was  farmed  out 
to  different  parties  up  to  1791.  The  postal  fees  collected  before 
the  Revolution  were  very  complicated;  because  an  attempt  was 
made  to  vary  the  charges  not  only  according  to  the  distance, 
but  also  according  to  the  weight  and  the  number  of  sheets  con- 
tained in  the  letter.  A  letter  sent  from  Paris  to  Marseilles 
cost  at  one  time  as  much  as  two  francs  and  two  centimes  in 
postage.  The  last  postal  tariff  which  was  made  proportional 
to  distance  was  that  of  1827,  according  to  which  France  was 
divided  into  nine  zones  and  postal  rates  fixed  for  each  zone. 
This  system  remained  in  force  up  to  1848,  when  the  National 
Assembly  adopted  the  uniform  rate  of  twenty  centimes  for  all 
letters  weighing  seven  and  one-half  grammes  or  less.  Under 
this  system  the  amount  of  mail  matter  carried,  increased  enor- 
mously, but  the  immediate  effect  of  the  law  was  to  decrease 
the  amount  of  revenue  derived  from  the  post  office.  After  the 
Franco-German  war,  France  found  it  necessary  to  utilize  the 
post  office  as  a  means  of  raising  revenue;  and,  to  do  this,  the 
postage  on  letters  weighing  ten  grammes  or  less  was  increased, 
by  the  law  of  August  24,  1871,  from  twenty  centimes  to  twenty- 
five.  This  tariff  remained  in  force  down  to  1878,  when  a  law 
was  passed  reducing  the  charge  to  fifteen  centimes  for  letters 
weighing  fifteen  grammes. 


92  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

H.       SCHOOL    FEES. 

The  University  of  Paris  derived  for  a  time  considerable  rev- 
enue from  the  postal  system  operated  by  it;  still  its  income 
was  never  so  large,  but  that  it  was  found  necessary  to  collect 
numerous  fees  of  many  kinds  from  its  students.  In  the  first  place, 
there  is  a  quarterly  matriculation  fee  of  thirty  francs  collected 
from  students  in  all  departments.  Other  fees  vary  according 
to  the  nature  of  the  studies  pursued,  or  degree  for  which  the 
student  is  working.  Furthermore,  there  are  numerous  examina- 
tion fees,  varying  in  amount,  besides  heavy  fees  for  certificates 
of  aptitudes.  For  the  degree  of  LL.  D.,  these  fees  aggregate 
thirteen  hundred  francs.  According  to  the  law  of  1844  the  fees 
for  this  degree  were  fixed  at  sixteen  hundred  and  sixty  francs; 
while  the  fees  required  for  obtaining  a  simple  license,  amounted 
to  eleven  hundred  francs.  "With  this  schedule  of  charges  the 
University  obtained  two  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  francs  in 
1862.  There  are  many  other  examination  and  school  fees  levied 
throughout  France.  As  an  example  may  be  mentioned  the  fee 
for  a  teacher's  examination,  which  is  ten  francs  for  a  lower 
grade,  and  twenty  francs  for  a  higher.1 

I.      PEAGES. 

These  are  pecuniary  charges  collected  for  the  use  of  the  means 
of  transportation  and  locomotion,  such  as  canals,  roads,  rivers, 
and  bridges.  They  are  said  to  date  back  to  Charlemagne,  who 
attempted  to  prevent  the  imposition  of  new  peages.  They  mul- 
tiplied very  fast  under  feudalism,  and  soon  lost  their  early 
characteristic  of  being  payments  designed  to  cover  the  expense 
of  repair  and  maintenance  of  the  roads  and  water  courses.  The 
lords  who  collected  these  tolls  were  for  a  time  supposed  to  be 
personally  responsible  for  the  safety  and  condition  of  the  high- 
ways.2 The  nobles  and  clergy  were  exempt  from  paying  these 
fees,  and,  as  early  as  1353,  the  same  exemption  was  extended  to 

^arieu,  III,  415-417.  Say,  Dietionnaire,  p.  222;  and  History  of 
French  Universities. 

2  An  ordinance  of  1561  imposed  upon  the  collector  the  obligation  of  keep- 
ing his  road  in  repair.     Cheruel,  II,  962. 


The  French  Fee  System.  93 

members  of  Parliament.1  Complaints  were  repeatedly  made 
against  the  numerous  exactions  practiced  as  peages.  As  an  ex- 
ample it  is  reported  that  thirty  such  tolls  were  collected  on 
thirty- six  leagues  of  road  outside  of  Paris.2 

The  peages  were  abolished  by  a  law  of  March  15,  1790,  but 
were  shortly  afterward  re-established  under  the  name  of  "Oc- 
troi de  Navigation. "  These,  like  their  predecessors,  were  al- 
most all  taxes,  their  original  purpose  having  been  entirely  lost 
sight  of.  The  old  idea  still  exists  in  the  bridge  and  ferry  tolls 
which  are  collected  throughout  France.  Bridges,  ferries,  and 
similar  means  of  transportation  over  navigable  waters,  were  con- 
fiscated by  the  law  of  November  26,  1798;  and  fees  were,  for  a 
time,  collected  for  the  use  of  the  state.3  Afterward  it  was  de- 
cided to  grant  ferry  privileges  for  limited  terms  of  years  to  the 
highest  bidder,  the  fees  or  tolls  having  previously  been  fixed  by 
law.     The  grant  was  usually  made  for  three,  six,  or  nine  years. 

J.       PATENT    FEES. 

The  fees  connected  with  the  French  Patent  Office,  are  per- 
haps as  modern  as  any  in  the  French  system.  These  origi- 
nated in  a  law  passed  by  the  National  Assembly  on  January  7, 
1791.  The  patent  rights  which  have  been  granted  by  the  last 
kings  under  the  old  regime  were  in  the  nature  of  special  mo- 
nopoly grants,  rather  than  patent  rights  in  the  modern  sense  of 
the  word.  The  law  of  1791  fixed  the  patent  fees  at 
360  lrancs  for  five  years,  862  francs  for  ten  years 
and  1,562  francs  for  fifteen  years.  An  act  of  1844 
changed  the  charges  to  500  francs  for  five  years,  1,000  francs 
for  ten  years,  and  1,500  francs  for  fifteen  years.  The  number 
of  patents  issued  has  been  growing,  resulting  in  a  correspond- 
ing increase  in  the  amount  collected  as  fees.  In  1885  the  re- 
ceipts from  this  source  were  no  less  than  2,045,000  francs.  The 
comparatively  high  patent  fees  of  France  are  justified  by  French 

1  Vuitry,  I,  120. 

2Chamageran,  Histoire  de  Vimpot  en  France. 

3 Hock,  Finanzverwaltung  Frankreichs,  pp.  428-432;  Say,  Die- 
tionnaire  de  Finance,  p.  466;   Block,  Dictionnaire;    Pariu,  III,  400. 


94  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

writers,  for  two  reasons:  first,  in  order  to  raise  funds  to  de- 
fray the  expense  of  maintaining  the  patent  office;  and,  secondly, 
to  serve  as  a  check  against  numerous  and  indiscriminate  ap- 
plications for  patent. 

K.       DROITS    DE    VOIRIE. l 

These  are  charges  for  permits  to  erect  signs  on  public  high- 
ways or  streets,  also  for  the  privilege  of  erecting  porticos,  bal- 
conies, verandas,  and  similar  structures  on  the  streets.  Charges 
for  permits  to  erect  bath  houses  in  rivers,  for  permits  to  have 
news  stands  on  streets,  wharves,  and  other  places,  and  many 
other  similar  privileges  belong  to  that  class.  Before  the  Rev- 
olution these  fees  formed  part  of  the  seigniorial  dues,  and  were 
often  farmed  out  by  the  lord  or  the  king.  At  present  they  are 
of  increasing  importance,  especially  in  the  cities,  as  they  can 
be  allowed  or  discontinued  at  any  time,  if  the  public  welfare 
seems  to  demand  it. 

L.       PERM1S    DE    CHASSE.2 

These  are  fees  for  license  to  hunt  and  to  carry  hunting  arms, 
and  are  of  considerable  importance.  At  one  time  they  yielded 
nearly  two  million  francs  of  revenue  into  the  treasury.  Numer- 
ous laws  have  been  enacted  regulating  this  privilege,  and  for  a 
time,  after  the  Revolution,  the  right  to  hunt  was  free  to  all ;  this 
caused  such  destruction  of  game  that  the  old  regulations  were 
enacted.  In  1871,  the  fee  was  fixed  at  thirty  francs  to  the  state 
and  ten  francs  to  the  commune;  which  was  found  to  be  so  high 
as  to  cause  a  diminution  in  the  receipts,  and,  in  1875,  the  charge 
was  reduced  to  eighteen  francs  for  the  state  and  ten  for  the 
commune. 

The  above-mentioned  fees  are  simply  a  few  of  the  most  im- 
portant classes  in  the  French  fee  system.  There  are  of  course 
many  others,  of  which  no  mention  has  been  made ;  some  of  them, 
like  the  court  fees,  of  very  great  significance.     Many  others  are 

1  Say,  Dietionnaire,  p.  1532;    Hock,  p.  425. 
3Parieu,   III,  408. 


The  French  Fee  System.  95 

levied  and  collected  by  the  municipalities  or  other  public  bodies, 
while  still  others  are  semi-private  in  their  character. 

Enough  evidence  has  been  given  on  each  of  the  classes  out- 
lined, to  show  how  the  charges  that  originated  as  pure  fees, 
were  invariably  increased,  especially  under  the  old  regime,  until 
they  became  extortionate  taxes.  The  French  Revolution,  as 
has  been  demonstrated,  brought  about  the  complete  abolition  of 
the  charges  which  had  become  so  obnoxious.  But  later  many  of 
the  charges  were  re-enacted,  and  gradually  increased.  The  only 
difference  between  the  earlier  and  later  laws,  so  far  as  the 
fees  are  concerned,  is  that  the  latter  charges  are  designed  to 
produce  the  highest  monopoly  returns.  As  soon  as  the  fees  are 
made  so  high  as  to  result  in  a  diminution  of  the  revenues,  there 
follows  very  frequently  a  reduction.  Tn  other  words,  the  prin- 
ciple of  highest  monopoly  charges  is  better  understood  and  ap- 
plied at  present  than  was  formerly  the  case.  In  a  few  instances 
the  charges  have  been  reduced  to  less  than  the  cost  of  the  serv- 
ices to  the  government;  but,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  the 
French   government   obtains  more  or    less    revenue   from    fees. 

One  of  the  most  important  reasons  for  the  success  of  the  gov- 
ernment in  extracting  revenue  from  its  fee  system,  is  the  excel- 
lent administrative  machinery  by  which  its  fee-collecting  offi- 
cials are  governed.  The  accounts  to  be  rendered  are  elaborate 
in  the  extreme,  and  the  personal  responsibility  of  officials  is 
vigorously  enforced;  and  the  result  is,  that  the  frauds  so  often 
exposed  by  investigating  committees  in  America,  are  almost 
unknown. 


96  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 


CHAPTER  V. 

FEES  IN  THE  COLONIES. 

A  study  of  the  fee-system  of  the  colonies,  as  contrasted  with 
the  English  fees  of  the  same  period,  reveals  in  a  very  striking 
way  the  influence  which  economic  conditions  and  environment 
have  upon  the  institutions,  habits,  and  ideals  of  men.  It  is  com- 
monly understood  that  the  early  American  colonists  carried  with 
them  their  English  laws,  church,  and  institutions;  and  that  they 
were  in  all  respects  Englishmen  who  had  merely  changed  their 
abode.  From  one  point  of  view  this  is  not  true.  The  moment 
the  first  colonists  set  foot  on  the  American  soil  with  the  inten- 
tion of  permanent  residence,  at  that  very  moment  they  became 
Americans;  in  that  the  forces  which  have  formed  the  American 
institutions  began  to  influence  them.  They  did  not  carry  with 
them  and  apply  to  American  conditions  the  whole  English  law 
in  its  English  form,  as  one  might  expect.  Even  the  church 
and  social  relations  were  profoundly  modified  in  the  process  of 
transplanting  from  English  to  American  soil.  It  was  the  spirit 
of  the  laws,  and  the  ideas  and  ideals  of  the  church  which  be- 
came the  basis  of  the  American  structure.  Some  parts  of  the 
I  law  were,  it  is  true,  taken  literally  and  enforced  as  American 
I  law.  But  a  greater  portion  of  the  English  jurisprudence  was 
found  inapplicable  to  the  new  conditions  and  rejected.  The 
English  courts  and  judicial  machinery  were,  however,  extensively 
|  used  in  all  colonies  in  a  somewhat  simplified  form.1 

This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  charges  made  for  the  services 
of  the  courts  of  justice,  represent  almost  the  only  system  of  fees 
for  which  we  are  indebted  to  England.  To  this  fact  may  also  be  at- 
tributed the  large  number  of  apparently  useles  and  superfluous  fees, 
which  have  to  be  paid  to  officers  connected  with  the  courts  in  most 

1  See  Duke  of  York's  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  pp.  147-151,  for  a  well  de- 
veloped system  of  court  fees  charged  in  1682. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  97 

of  the  Eastern  states.  Much  of  this  machinery  of  the  courts  was  at 
first  imposed  upon  the  colonists  by  the  governors,  who  had 
charge  of  the  admistration  of  justice,  and  oftentimes  even  acted 
as  judges.1  But  so  little  use  did  the  colonists  make  of  the 
courts,  except  to  enforce  criminal  law,  that  no  objection  was 
raised  against  the  fees  collected  by  the  various  court  officials, 
or  at  least  inserted  in  the  laws. 

Another  form  of  charges,  which  were  collected  from  the  very 
beginning,  were  the  perquisites  and  other  fees  which  constitu- 
ted the  compensation  of  the  governors  and  inferior  officers  of  the 
colonies.2  The  most  important  source  of  these  fees  were  the 
land  patents  and  land  grants.  Payments  were  also  made  for  a 
variety  of  services  performed  by  the  governor,  although  do  law 
fixing  their  amounts  can  be  found.  These  charges  were  re- 
peatedly made  pretexts  for  numerous  extortions  of  various  kinds, 
but  there  is  ample  evidence  to  show  that  they  were  not  paid  without 
protests.  Indeed,  so  far  were  these  objections  carried,  as  to  re- 
suit  in  an  open  revolt  against  the  New  York  governor  by  Ver- 
mont.3    The  main  objection  they  had  to  him  was,  that  he  charged 

1  Gov.  Hunter's  commission  in  New  York  in  1703  gave  him  power  to  ap- 
point judges,  commissioners  of  oyer  and  terminer,  justices  of  the  peace, 
and  other  officials.  Civil  List  of  New  York,  p.  163.  The  governors  of 
New  York  were  chief  justices  or  appointed  deputies  to  serve  in  that  capac- 
ity. The  governor  of  South  Carolina  was  given  the  following  fees  (Stat- 
utes, 1865,  II,  3):  Signing  vessel  dispatch,  5s;  signing  license  to  sell 
wine,  5£;  signing  license  to  sell  punch,  3£;  signing  letter  testimonial,  10s; 
signing  writ  in  admiralty  court,  1£;  signing  marriage  license,  10s;  signing 
warrant  of  contempt  in  admiralty,  1£;  signing  warrant  of  appraisement, 
5s;  signing  letter  of  administration,  5s;  signing  probate  of  will,  5s.  In  1686 
the  following  fees  were  added:  For  grant  of  500  acres  of  land,  1£;  injunc- 
tion in  chancery,  10s;  decree  in  chancery,  10s;  ticket  to  leave,  2s  6d;  grant 
of  less  than  500  acres  of  land,  10s;  prohibition  in  admiralty,  10s;  warrant 
for  land,  2s  6d. 

2  The  attorney  general  of  the  colony  of  New  York  was  charged  with  the 
preparation  of  letters  patent  for  corporations,  grants  of  land,  and  so  on; 
the  fees  from  which  were  highly  lucrative.  Civil  List  of  New  York, 
1887,  p.  176. 

3  The  fees  of  the  governor  of  New  York  for  granting  a  township  of  land 
in  Vermont  were  from  $2,000  to  $2,600,  while  the  governor  of  New  Hamp- 
shire charged  only  $100.  Rowland  E.  Robinson,  History  of  Vermont, 
p.  62. 

7 


98  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

higher  land  patent  fees  than  Governor  Wentworth  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, from  whom  they  had  received  their  lands  before  the  trans- 
fer  of  jurisdiction.  Some  of  the  early  governors  succeeded  in 
collecting  goodly  salaries  from  their  perquisites.1  The  grants 
to  the  governor  of  New  York  yielded  over  $65,000,  besides  liberal 
fees  to  the  secretary  of  the  province,  clerks  of  council,  receiver 
general,  attorney  general,  and  surveyor  general.2  The  colonial 
governors  were  not  all  models  of  puritan  simplicity  and  honesty.3 
Many  of  them  did  not  scruple  to  avail  themselves  of  their  office 
to  exact  various  illegal  fees,  at  times  almost  exorbitant  in 
amount.  * 

These  colonial  governors,  especially  those  of  New  York,  were 
many  of  them  worthy  examples  of  the  notorious  ring-leaders  of 
later  generations.  The  crown  itself  was  constantly  defrauded 
of  numerous  fees  and  perquisites,  which  they  collected  in  its 
name,  but  failed  to  turn  over  or  account  for  in  any  way. 

Considered  from  our  point  of  view,  it  seems  rather  strange 
that  the  colonists  would  pay  these  charges,  when  they  must 
have  known  that  there  was   no   law   sanctioning  them.     But  it 

Governor  Clarke  is  said  to  have  amassed  a  fortune  of  $100,000  in  seven 
years;  and  Gov.  Clinton  obtained  $80,000  in  a  short  time  (mainly  from  fees, 
as  salaries  were  less  than  2,000£  per  annum).  Roberts,  History  of  New 
York,'?.  296. 

2  During  the  thirteen  months  interregnum  in  New  York  in  1731 ,  the 
lieutenant  governor  collected  over  6,407£  in  fees  and  other  perquisites  of 
office.     Ibid.,  p.  261. 

8  Among  the  other  glaring  abuses  charged  against  Governor  Crosby  of 
New  York  was  the  extortion  of  150£  for  one  trip  to  Albany,  750£  for  serv- 
ices in  London,  etc.,  in  the  probate  court.  (Ibid.,  pp.  265-267.)  See  also 
F.  A.  Wood's  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont,  Columbia  College 
Studies,  IV,  322. 

4  "  For  the  sake  of  acquiring  fees  as  governor  or  proprietor  he  (Gov. 
Sothel  of  North  Carolina)  disputed  the  best  of  titles,  and  vexed  the  fairest 
traders."  History  of  North  Carolina.  Hugh  Williamson,  II,  p.  140.) 
The  Ninth  assembly  of  New  York  in  1703  adopted  an  address  to  the  gover- 
nor concerning  the  exorbitant  charges,  fees,  and  other  exactions,  re- 
questing, among  other  things,  the  appointment  of  a  treasurer  who  shall  be 
a  resident  and  inhabitant  of  the  colony.  {Civil  List  of  New  York,  1887, 
p.  73.)  See  also  W.  S.  Ripley,  Financial  History  of  Virginia,  Columbia 
College  Studies,  Vol.  IV. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  99 

must  not  be  forgotten  that  laws  were  not  so  explicit  in  the 
early  days  as  at  present.  General  powers  were  given  to  gov- 
ernors in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  details  to  the  discretion  of  each 
official.  A  page  of  colonial  or  provincial  law  would  give  all  the 
rules  which  would  have  required  twenty  pages  of  modern  statutes. 
The  worst  abuses  which  this  state  of  affairs  made  possible  were 
more  directly  caused  by  the  fact,  that  the  governors  looked  upon 
their  positions  as  sources  of  revenue,  and  did  not  hesitate  to 
exploit  the  offices  to  which  they  had  the  appointing  power. 
Thus  we  find  one  of  the  grievances  of  the  Massachusetts  colonists 
under  Governor  Andros's  administration  1  to  be,  the  extortionate 
fees  collected  by  the  deputy  to  whom  Secretary  Randolph  had 
farmed  the  post  of  secretary.  This  practice  was  not  confined  to 
Massachusetts  alone,  but  was  resorted  to  in  several  other  col- 
onies both  by  the  governor  and  by  subordinate  officials. 

A.     SURVIVAL  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  REGALIA,    OR    ROYAL    PREROGATIVES, 
IN  THE  COLONIES. 

In  the  earliest  colonial  period  there  were  very  few  taxes 
levied,  for  but  little  revenue  was  needed.  All  the  officers  were 
supported  more  or  less  by  the  fees  which  they  collected.  No 
expensive  public  works  were  undertaken  by  public  authority;2 
hence  but  little  money  was  needed  in  the  treasury.  As  a  re- 
sult, the  idea  of  paying  money  or  fees  into  the  public  treasury 
never  seems  to  have  occurred  to  the  early  colonists.  In  old 
England  they  had  paid  everything  into  the  King's  Exchequer 
for  the  use  of  the  King  and  the  State.  What  could  be  more 
natural  than  that  similar  payments  should,  in  the  New  World, 
be  made  to  the  highest  representative  of  the  sovereign  power  — 
the  governor!  At  any  rate,  such  was  the  case.  He  granted  the 
marriage  license  and  collected  his    perquisites3  for   the    grant, 

1  Doyle,  English  Colonies  in  America,  IV,  247.  See  also  Colonial 
Laws  of  Massachusetts,  p.  242,  for  similar  methods  authorized  by  the 
Massachusetts  General  Court. 

2  The  meeting  houses  and  town  halls  were  built  by  co-operation  rather 
than  by  means  of  taxes;  no  record  of  laws  passed  for  this  purpose,  is  found. 

3  Maryland  marriage  license  fee,  30s.     Colonial  laws,  1777,  Ch.  12. 
The  governor  of  New  York  had  power  to  grant  marriage  licenses  and 


100  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

while  the  clerk  wrote  the  bond  which  was  required,  the  secre- 
tary recorded  it,  and  the  minister  performed  the  ceremony,  each 
of  whom  must  be  given  fees  for  their  services. 

But  the  colonial  marriage  license  was,  in  its  essence,  radi- 
cally different  from  the  modern  marriage  license.  The  license 
which  the  governors  granted,  was  at  first  regarded  as  a  special 
dispensation.  Everybody  was  not  required  to  obtain  this 
license;  and  the  more  usual  way  in  many  colonies,  was  to  be 
married  in  the  churches,  after  the  banns  had  been  proclaimed, 
and  the  other  formalities  complied  with.  The  special  dispensa- 
tion conferred  by  the  marriage  license  from  the  governor,  was 
the  privilege  of  being  married  at  home,  without  going  through 
all  the  prescribed  formalities.  The  new  method  obviated  all 
the  publicity  which  the  old  customs  required,  and  soon  became 
popular  in  many  colonies.  The  governors  were,  as  a  rule,  very 
willing  to  grant  these  licenses,  because  of  the  fees  which  they 
thereby  obtained.  The  governor  of  Pennsylvania  is  reported 
to  have  obtained  considerable  revenue  from  this  source.1 

But  the  governor's  prerogative  extended  to  many  other  mat- 
ters with  which  our  governors  of  the  day  have  nothing  to  do. 
[  In  Massachusetts  they  granted  licenses  to  Frenchmen  to  open 
'shop,  or  carry  on  trade  in  the  province.2  A  fee  had  to  be  paid 
to  obtain  the  governor's  signature  to  validate  a  deed  from 
Indians.3  Licenses  to  trade  with  the  Indians  were  obtained  in 
the  same  way.4  A  fee  for  each  ordinary  license  was  also  a  part 
of  the  governor's  perquisite  in  many  places,5  as    were  peddlers' 

issue  probates  of  wills,  to  license  schoolmasters  and  printers,  to  erect 
forts,  and  establish  fairs  and  markets.  Civil  List  of  New  York,  1887, 
p.  163.  Governor  Andros,  appointed  Governor  General  in  1686,  charged 
60s  for  the  probate  of  each  will,  besides  expenses  of  journey  to  Boston; 
and  for  confirming  patents  of  lands  granted  under  the  old  charter,  he 
charged  50£.     Columbia  College  Studies,  I,  300. 

1  Mem.  Pa.  Hist.  Soc,  XI,  357. 

2  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  1693,  p.  90. 

*  Ibid.,  HOI,  I,  471. 

*  Ibid.,  1113,  p.  725. 

5  The  Duke  of  York's  laws,  1676,  provided  that  licenses  to  sell  liquor  be 
issued  by  the  Governor  to  those  recommended,  "in  order  thereto  by  two 
justices  in  open  court." 


f  OF  TBB 

(university 

Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  ^s^JUKEIfok*^^ 

licenses1  in  some  colonies.  Fees  for  letters  patent,  for  natur- 
alization privileges,  for  certificates  of  ability  to  contract  debt, 
and  for  many  other  real  or  imaginary  privileges,  were  received 
by  many  colonial  governors.  Most  of  these  fees  may,  in  one 
sense,  be  considered  as  relics  of  the  old  system  of  royal  prerog- 
atives, which  survived  for  shorter  or  longer  periods  of  time 
under  American  conditions.  Very  often  the  fees  of  the  gover- 
nor continued  to  be  collected,  long  after  the  special  dispensation 
had  ceased  to  exist.  Many  of  these  fees,  especially  for  licenses, 
did  not  remain  very  long  a  perquisite  of  the  governor's  office. 
Their  abolition  or  gradual  transference  into  the  public  treas- 
ury, is  marked  by  frequent  clashes  between  the  representatives 
of  the  people  and  the  governors,  the  latter  backed  by  the  crown. 
The  licensing  power  was  usually  taken  away  from  the  governor 
first,  and  transferred  to  some  licensing  body  or  to  the  legislature 
afterwards;  and  the  fee  was  either  abolished  altogether,2  or  else 
commuted  for  a  fixed  annual  appropriation.3 

B.       COLONIAL    LICENSE    FEES. 

It  is  not  possible  at  present  to  state  the  exact  cause  of  the 
different  kinds  of  license  legislation  which  we  find  on  the  colonial 
statute  books;  nor  can  we  place  our  finger  upon  the  original 
acts,  which  may  be  called  the  prototypes  of  all  the  subsequent 
laws  on  this  subject.  But  sufficient  data  may  be  found  in  the 
colonial  records  and  laws  of  any  colony,  to  establish,  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt,  the  origin  and  development  of  the  fees  which 
were  and  are  at  present  paid  for  the  licenses  granted  by  public 
authority.  Many  of  these  charges  must,  no  doubt,  as  has  al- 
ready been  pointed  out,  be  considered  as  survivals  of  the  Eng- 
lish, or  European,  systems  of  government.  But  a  very  large 
majority  of  our  license  regulations  and  license  fees,  have  been 
introduced  and  developed  on  American  soil.     To  obtain  a  proper 

1  Henning's  Statutes,  III,  377-378. 

2  Fees  of  the  Governor  of  Massachusetts  for  ordinary  and  marriage 
licenses  were  abolished  in  1776.    Laws,  1776,  VIII,  225. 

3  A  law  of  South  Carolina  in  1711  provided  that  the  license  money  be 
paid  into  the  treasury  and  that  the  Governor  be  granted  120£  per  annum 
in  lieu  of  all  license  money  formerly  collected  by  him.     Statutes,  p.  363. 


102  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

conception  of  this  development,  it  is  necessary  to  constantly  bear 
in  mind  the  economic  and  political  condition  of  the  people  and 
governments  of  the  colonies.  The  English,  Dutch,  and  the 
Swedes,  who  became  the  founders  of  the  American  colonies,  came 
directly  from  old  countries,  in  which  everything  had  so  long 
been  firmly  established  by  law  and  custom  that  the  citizens  had 
not  become  conscious  of  their  rights  to  make  or  chancre  their 
own  laws  at  will. 
j  It  is  conceivable  that  these  borrowed  institutions  and  laws 
which  the  governors  attempted  to  apply  to  the  colonies,  worked 
very  well  at  first.  But  a  short  period  of  time  sufficed  to  prove 
to  these  early  pioneers,  that  the  English  law  was  not  suitable 
to  all  conditions.  Thejproblems  which  the  English  law  attempted 
to  solve,  were  not  the  problems  which  confronted  the  colonist. 
They  did,  no  doubt,  at  the  very  outset,  attempt  to  regulate  the 
marriage  relation  in  the  same  way  that  they  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  in  their  home  countries.  They,  or  at  least  the  gover- 
nors, did  think  it  necessary  to  regulate  the  titles  and  rights  to 
land.  But  the  lack  of  any  provision  regulating  the  Indian  trade, 
\  was  not  felt,  until  this  trade  with  its  abuses  had  assumed  such 
J  proportions  as  to  threaten  the  safety  of  the  colony.  Here  they 
I  had  no  English  precedent  to  fall  back  upon,  and  were  therefore 
forced  to  devise  some  new  means  of  dealing  with  the  subject  as 
it  presented  itself. 

The  people  who  carried  on  the  Indian  trade  were,  as  a  class, 
.disreputable  and  not  to  be  trusted.1     The  most  natural  solution 
Iwas,  to  allow  only  responsible  and  trustworthy  people  to  engage 
jin  this  traffic,  and,  to  secure   this   end,  it  was  enacted  that  no 
[  one  should  engage  in  the  Indian  trade  without  a  license  therefor 
from  the  colonial  governor.     This  is  the  first   stage  of  the  evo- 
lution  of   a   license  fee;  regulation   by   the  state  without  any 
charge  for  the  privilege,  except  perhaps  a  very  small  recorder's 
fee  for  the  clerk.     An  examination  of  the  laws   of   the   various 
colonies  will  reveal  a  large  array  of  subjects  which,  to  the  mind 
of  the   colonial  legislator,  seemed  equally  liable    to  abuse.     As 
examples  the  following  might  be  cited :  the  occupations  of  tan- 

Dinwiddie,  Virginia  Historical  papers,  II,  340. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  103 

ners,1  printers,2  lawyers,3  physicians,4  Indian  traders,5  peddlers,* 
tavern  keepers,7  pilots,8  and  many  others.  No  one  at  that  time 
could  foresee  that  the  liquor  regulation,  which  then  seemed  even 
less  necessary  than  some  of  the  other  license  regulations,  should 
one  day  become  so  important  as  it  has  grown  to  be.  The  regula- 
tion of  any  one  of  the  above  mentioned  subjects,  might  have  de- 
veloped in  the  same  way  that  the  liquor  licenses  have,  provided 
the  conditions  had  been  suitable.  All  of  them  attained  the  first 
stage  of  development,  but  many  reached  no  farther.  As  exam- 
ples may  be  cited  the  printers'  and  tanners'  licenses.  Many 
others  have  tended  to  disappear,  or  have  been  made  conditional 
upon  certain  qualifications,  educational  and  otherwise,  the  fee 
being  often  changed  from  a  license  fee  to  an  examination  fee. 
On  the  other  hand,  many  occupations  which  are  now  subject  to 
stringent  license  regulations,  were  forbidden  in  the  colonial  pe- 
riod. As  examples  may  be  mentioned  peddlers  in  Connecticut, 
Massachusetts,9  and  New  York,10  and  theatres  in  Massachusetts11 
and  Rhode  Island.12 

The  second  stage  in  the  development  of  license  regulations  is 
reached  when  a  fee  is  collected  for  the  privilege  conferred  by  the 
license.  This  stage  was  very  often  hastened  by  the  fact,  that 
the  colonial  governors  were  eager  for  any  opportunity  or  excuse 

1  Two  early  laws  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  which  read  almost 
like  the  ancient  Guild  regulations,  provided  that  no  one  should  engage  in 
the  business  of  tanner  until  he  had  shown  his  ability  and  knowledge  of 
the  mystery  of  tanning  to  the  county  court,  and  had  paid  a  license  fee. 
(In  force  down  to  1796.) 

2  History  of  New  York  (Commonwealth  series),  I,  255. 
3Laivs,  S.  C,  1789,  IV,  669. 

*Laius,  N.  H.,  1789,  p.  302. 
5  Statutes,  S.  C,  1711,  II,  359. 

•Peddling  was  forbidden  in  New  York  (Laws,  Ninth  Session,  p.  204). 
'Laws,  S.  C,  1741;  Rev.  Stat.,  1801,  V,  400. 
8  Colonial  Laws,  S.  C,  1690,  pp.  51,  93. 
*  Laws  119$,  1,243. 

10  New  York  Statutes,  Ninth  session,  Ch.  XI,  204;  Twenty-fourth  ses- 
sion., p.  45. 

11  Up  to  1806.  First  playhouse  in  Boston,  1794.  Weeden,  History  of 
New  England,  II,  863. 

12  Statutes  1823,  p.  152,  §  1. 


104  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

for  exacting  money  from  the  people.  A  small  charge  once  begun 
was  easily  made  a  precedent  or  pretext  for  a  higher  exaction. 
But  even  where  the  license  fees  were  taken  away  from  the  gov- 
ernors, their  tendency  to  increase  in  amount  was  manifest.  As 
an  example  may  be  cited  the  fees  for  Indian  traders'  licenses  in 
South  Carolina.  At  first  there  was  no  charge  for  the  privilege; 
then  a  small,  almost  nominal  fee  was  charged,  which  was  soon 
increased  to  £3;  in  1709  it  became  £5;  and  in  1711  it  was  in- 
creased to  £8,  then  to  £20;  and  finally  in  1734,  £50  were 
charged  for  each  license.  This  was  the  high  water  mark, 
which  was  held  for  only  a  short  time,  after  which  the  charge 
was  decreased  again.1  In  1719  a  commission  was  appointed  to 
manage  the  Indian  trade  for  the  benefit  of  the  colony.  This 
commission  was  empowered  to  license  traders,  provided  they 
gave  bond  for  £500  and  paid  ten  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  into 
the  colonial  treasury.2  The  same  is  true  of  peddlers'  licenses 
in  South  Carolina.  The  fee  was  gradually  increased,  until  in 
1738  we  find  £100  charged  for  a  license  to  peddle  by  water,  and 
£50  by  land  when  carried  on  with  a  horse.3 
,  The  evolution  of  the  license  fee  as  we  know  it  to-day,  can  be 
most  easily  traced  through  its  early  stages  in  the  colonial  liquor 
regulation.  The  experience  of  Massachusetts  may  be  considered 
as  typical ;  for  every  other  colony  has,  with  more  or  less  varia- 
tions, passed  through  the  same  process.*  The  preamble  of  a 
Massachusetts  license  law  dated  1645,5  reads  as  follows:  "  For- 
asmuch as  there  is  a  necessary  use  of  houses  of  common  en- 
tertainment in  every  commonwealth,  and  of  such  as  retail 
wine,  beer,  and  victuals,  yet,  because  there  are  so  many  abuses 
by  persons  entertaining  and  by  person  entertained,"  it  is  or- 
dered that,    "  no  person     .     .     .     shall  be  a   keeper  of  a  cook- 

1  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  13,  104;  Financial  History  of 
South  Carolina,  C.  L.  Whitley;  also  Laws,  S.  C. 

"Laws,  S.  C.,  1719,  p.  93. 

3  Laws,  1838,  III,  487. 

4F.  A.Wood,  History  oj  Taxation  in  Vermont;  Columbia  College 
Studies,  IV,  391.  The  earlier  liquor  licenses  in  Vermont  were  imposed  for 
regulation,  not  revenue.     The  fee  charged   was  about  equal  to  one  dollar. 

6  Colonial  Laws,   Mass.,  p;   43,  (1645-51,  1653,  1657-58);  1645,  p.  164. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  105 

shop  or  house  of  common  entertainment,  tavern  or  a  public 
seller  of  wine,  ale,  beer,  or  strong  waters  by  retail,  without 
the  approbation  of  the  selected  townsmen,  and  a  license  by  the 
county  court,  upon  pain  of  forfeiture  of  £5  for  every  offence. " 
This  did  not  apply  to  wholesalers  selling  wine  in  quantities  of 
not  less  than  three  gallons  or  strong  waters  less  than  a  quart. 
A  little  later  another  act  was  passed  which  read  in  part  as  fol- 
lows -}  "  And  because  it  is  difficult  to  keep  order,  and  keep  the 
public  houses  of  public  entertainment  in  conformity  to  the 
wholesome  laws  established,  as  is  necessary  for  preventing 
drunkenness,  excessive  drinking,  vaine  expenses  of  money,  time, 
and  the  abuse  of  the  good  creatures  of  God,  it  is  ordered"  that 
the  license  shall  be  valid  for  only  one  year,  but  may  be  renewed 
annually  on  application  to  the  county  court;  for  each  renewal 
the  licensee  was  required  to  pay  two  shillings  six  pence  to  the 
clerk  of  court.  In  1661  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  require 
distillers  and  wholesale  dealers  to  obtain  a  license,  for  the  rea- 
sons set  forth  in  the  preamble,  as  follows :  "  Upon  complaint  of 
the  great  abuses  that  are  daily  committed  by  retailers  of  strong 
waters,  rhum,  .  .  .  both  by  distillers  thereof  and  by  such 
as  have  it  from  forraigne  ports,2  it  is  ordered"  that  etc.  .  .  . 
Laws  of  this  kind,  designed  to  prevent  drunkenness  by  re- 
stricting the  sale  of  liquor  to  persons  of  good  character  who 
could  secure  the  approval  of  the  selectmen  of  the  town,  and  by 
providing  penalties  against  tippling  and  drunkenness,  were  re- 
peatedly passed  by  the  colonial  legislatures.  As  a  sample  of 
the  latter  may  be  mentioned  a  provision  in  a  law  of  1787:3  "  Nor 
shall  any  person  licensed  to  sell  strong  waters,  or  any  house- 
keeper permit  any  person  or  persons  to  sit  drinking  or 
tippling  strong  waters  or  wine  or  strong  beer  in  their 
houses. "  An  act  of  the  same  purport  was  passed  in 
1798  in  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,*  which  provided  in  addi- 
tion that  no  more  houses  of  common  entertainment  should  be 
licensed  than  was  necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  the  pub- 


1  Ibid.,  p.  166.  2 Ibid.,  p.  84.  3 Ibid.,  p.  15. 

AActs  and  Resolves  and  Charters  of  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony^ 
III. 


106  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

lie,  and  furthermore  that  all  licensed  houses  shall  be  "  on  or  near 
the  high  roads,  streets,  and  places  of  great  resort. "  As  early  as 
1712  we  find  a  statute  which  attempted  to  accomplish  the  same 
thing,  by  giving  the  licensing  authorities  power  to  suppress 
unlicensed  establishments  and  to  decrease  the  number  of  licensed 
ones.  It  was  further  provided  in  1787  that  all  persons  apply- 
ing for  a  license  outside  of  the  regular  time,  shall  pay  six  shil- 
lings to  the  county,  besides  the  usual  fees;  and  the  old  pro- 
vision was  continued  in  force,  to  the  effect  that  all  licensed 
houses  must  keep  on  hand  provisions  for  entertaining  men  and 
beasts. 

One  of  the  most  significant  characteristics  ol  all  the  liquor  li- 
cense legislation  of  the  colonial  period,  is  the  fact,  that  it  con- 
cerned taverns  and  ordinaries  only.  The  taverns  and  inns 
were  very  important  factors  in  colonial  life.  Every  crossroad 
had  its  tavern  or  inn  for  accommodation  of  travelers  and  car- 
riers, which  was  an  absolutely  necessary  part  df  the  transporta- 
tion facilities  of  the  time.  The  licenses  were  aimed,  not  so 
much  at  the  regulation  of  the  liquor  traffic,  as  at  the  regulation 
of  the  taverns,  so  as  to  make  them  furnish  suitable  accommoda- 
tions at  reasonable  rates.  In  fact  it  was  not  unusual  to  rescu- 
late  the  rates,  prescribe  what  provisions  must  be  kept  on  hand, 
fix  a  minimum  standard  of  quality  of  beer,  and  regulate  the 
maximum  price  per  pint.1  The  modern  saloon  or  grog-shop  did 
not  exist  and  was  not  recognized  by  law  until  1816,  when  the 
first  act  was  passed  authorizing  the  grant  of  licenses  to  persons 
who  did  not  maintain  taverns.  Two  years  later  we  find  the  li- 
cense fee  raised  from  one  to  four  dollars  per  annum,2  besides 
the  usual  fees  for  registration  and  other  services.  From  this 
time  on  the  liquor  license  fee  has  gradually  increased  until  it 
became  what  we  have  it  today. 

1  In  Virginia  the  licensee  bound  himself  to  sell  his  liquor  at  the  price  set 
by  the  commissioners. 

Applicants  for  innholders'  licenses  were  required  to  take  an  oath  not  to 
violate  the  law  against  monopolies,  nor  to  sell  liquor  at  higher  prices  than 
was  prescribed  by  law.  Acts  and  Resolves  of  Province  of  Massachu- 
setts, V,  647. 

2  Colonial  Laws,  Mass.,  from  Boston  Courier,  p.  19. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  107 

It  has  seemed  necessary  to  give  this  somewhat  lengthy  ac- 
count of  the  Massachusetts  license  legislation,  because  it  ap- 
pears to  show  more  accurately  than  that  of  any  other  colony, 
the  evolution  of  our  liquor  license  fees  under  normal  conditions. 

It  shows  quite  clearly  the  actual  steps  in  the  process  by 
which  the  modern  fee  has  emerged  out  of  a  simple  regulation. 
It  shows,  furthermore,  that  modern  liquor  license  is  entirely 
different  from  a  colonial  liquor  license,  the  latter  being  in  its 
essence  a  tavern  or  hotel  license,  which  was  intended  to  regu- 
late, not  only  the  sale  of  liquor,  but  the  entire  tavern  business. 
The  transition  from  tavern  to  saloon  licenses  took  place  as  soon 
as  the  tavern  ceased  to  be  an  economic  problem,  in  other  words, 
when  the  canal,  the  steamboat,  and  the  railroad  began  to  dis- 
place the  public  highways  in  the  business  of  transportation. 
Most  of  the  country  taverns  disappeared  of  themselves,  while 
others  were  changed  into  or  displaced  by  the  saloon  and  corner  j 
grocery. 

Many  other  expedients  were  resorted  to  at  various  times  in 
the  other  colonies.  The  size  of  the  license  charge,  for  example, 
was  graduated  according  to  the  place  where  the  tavern  was 
situated,  varying  from  l£  10s  to  10£  in  the  colony  of  Plymouth 
in  1669  ;l  while  in  Maryland  the  number  of  ordinaries  was  lim- 
ited by  law,  and  the  amount  of  the  license  charge  varied  ac- 
cording to  the  proximity  of  the  tavern  to  large  towns.2  In  Con- 
necticut taverns  were  limited  in  number  to  two  in  each  town,3 
and  a  similar  provision  was  required  in  South  Carolina. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  that,  as  a  rule,   high  license  charges  I 
were  imposed  much  earlier  in  the  south  than  in  New  England. 
Thus    Virginia  at  one  time  charged  as  much  as  40£  for  ordi-  j 
naries'  licenses,4  and  South  Carolina5  collected  6£   for  each  li- 
cense in   1701.     Maryland    also   obtained   considerable  revenue 

1  Laws  of  Colony  of  Plymouth,  p.  155. 

2  2,000  lbs.  of  tobacco  were  charged  for  an  ordinary  license  within  two 
miles  of  St.  Mary's  and  1,2C0  lbs.  for  the  same  privilege  within  any  county. 
Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies,  Vol.  10,  p.  313. 

3  Laws,  1797.    Approval  of  selectmen  required. 

4  Statutes,  Henning,  I,  189. 
6  Statutes,  II,  363. 


108  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

from  her  license  money.  The  high  peddlers'  and  Indian  trad- 
ers' license  fees  have  already  been  mentioned.  Billiard  table  li- 
censes in  connection  with  ordinaries  were  also  introduced  very 
early  in  the  South. 1  Ferries  were  licensed  everywhere,  but  fees 
were  at  first  rarely  charged  for  the  privilege.2  Many  other  li- 
cense fees  were  imposed  at  different  times,  but  none  of  them 
seem  of  sufficient  importance  to  deserve  special  consideration 
here. 

C.       COLONIAL  REGULATION  OF  FEES. 

As  the  interior  of  the  colonies  developed,  it  is  but  natural 
that  means  of  transportation  should  become  of  increasing  im- 
portance. The  attention  of  the  colonial  legislative  bodies  came 
to  be  directed  more  and  more  to  ferries,  toll-bridges,  toll-roads, 
and  other  transportation  facilities.3  At  first  the  permission 
to  build  them  and  levy  toll  for  their  use,  was  granted  by  special 
acts.*  In  some  colonies,  however,  these  rights  were  granted  by 
the  governors.  The  regulation  of  the  amount  of  fees  to  be 
charged  was,  as  a  rule,  left  to  the  legislative  council,  which  ex- 
ercised this  right  very  frequently.  But  in  spite  of  the  best 
regulation,  and  in  spite  of  the  heavy  penalties  imposed  for  vio- 
lations, unjust  and  discriminating  tolls  continued  to  be  col- 
lected by  the  various  ferry-men  and  toll-gatherers.  Complaints 
were  also  made  that  the  judges,  sheriffs,  clerks,  and  other  fee 
collecting  officers,  connected  with  the  courts,  charged  illegal  and 
extortionate  amounts  for  their  services. 

The  legislative  bodies  made  numerous  attempts  to  prevent 
these  abuses.  But  with  each  new  regulation  which  checked  some 
existing  abuse  of  the  fee-system,  some  other  subterfuge 5  or  way 
of  evading  the  law,   so  as  to  collect   heavy   fees,  was    often   in- 

1  South  Carolina  in  1741  charged  40s  for  billiard  table  licenses. 

2  In  Massachusetts  in  1781  the  clerk  making  out  the  ferry  license  was 
allowed  to  charge  5s  therefor.     Laws,  Dorsey,  I,  176. 

3  Ferry  tolls  regulated,  Colonial  Laws  of  Mass.  (reprint),  p.  151. 

4  Mass.  Law,  Feb.  14,  1797;  1694;  1726, 1760,  etc. 

6  Separate  fees  were  charged  in  Virginia  for  each  of  several  small  parcels 
of  land,  when  one  fee  would  suffice.  Bacon's  laws  attempt  to  remedy 
this.     Statutes  at  Jjarge,  Henning,  II,  355. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies,  109 

vented  by  the  slippery  collectors.1  In  course  of  time  the  legis- 
lation seems  to  have  accomplished  at  least  one  great  reform  in 
most  of  the  colonies.  This  reform  consisted  in  securing  pub- 
licity, as  to  the  amount  of  fees  which  each  public  official  could 
legally  charge  for  his  services,  by  making  provision  to  the  effect, 
that  the  fee  bill  should  be  posted  up  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  the 
office  of  each  fee-taker.2  Colonial  legislation  consists  largely  of  a 
series  of  special  laws.  General  laws  came  later  on,  after  the 
efficiency  of  each  special  law  had  been  demonstrated.  The  above 
mentioned  reform  was  thus  applied  gradually.3  The  offices  in 
which  the  abuses  seemed  most  aggravating,  were  first  brought 
under  this  provision.  In  time  others  followed,  until  a  complete 
reform  was  accomplished,  the  importance  of  which  can  scarcely 
be  grasped  by  the  student,  who  examines  the  subject  from  the 
modern  legal  point  of  view.  The  colonial  legislative  bodies  were 
not  the  legal  sovereigns  which  our  legislatures  are  to-day.  They 
might  make  their  regulations  for  the  public  official ;  but  so  long 
as  the  people  did  not  know  what  these  enactments  were,  the  offi- 
cials might  charge  almost  what  they  pleased,  under  cover  of 
law.  The  reform,  therefore,  which,  though  begun  in  the  colon- 
ial period,  has  not  been  completely  carried  out  in  some  of  the 
states  even  to  this  day,  really  took  from  the  official  the  arbitrary 
power  which  he  often  exercised,  and  made  him  directly  amen- 
able to  the  will  of  the  people,  that  is,  to  the  law. 

One  of  the  most  important  colonial  offices,  outside  of  the 
courts,  was  that  of  provincial  surveyor,  or  surveyor-general,  as 
he  was  usually  termed.  Knowing,  as  we  do,  that  the  land 
grants  and  land  patents  formed  the  chief  source  of  the  emoluments 

1  Another  way  of  evading  the  law  was  to  require  every  fee  payer  to  pay 
heavy  extras  for  copies  of  documents  which  he  did  not  want  or  need.  Ibid., 
Ill,  162.  v 

2  A  Virginia  law  of  1736  provided  that  a  table  of  fees  of  each  clerk  and  \ 
secretary  be  set  up  in  his  office.    Ibid.,  IV,  505;  III,  164;  IV,  59,  350,  490; 
V,  341;  VI,  98,  etc. 

3  In  Penn's  charter,  made  in  England,  1683,  it  was  provided  that  all  fees  \ 
be  moderate  and  fixed  by  the  provincial  council  and  general  assembly; 

a  table  of  fees  to  be  hung  up  in  each  respective  court.  Colonial  Charters 
and  Constitutions,  by  B.  P.  Poore. 


110  TJrdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

of  the  governors  and  other  officers,  it  is  perfectly  natural  that  the 
official  who  fixed  the  legal  metes  and  bounds  of  their  respective 
lands,  should  increase  in  importance  many  fold.  In  that  primi- 
tive state,  his  services  became  a  necessity  to  everybody;  as 
everyone  owned,  or  wished  to  own,  land.  In  some  colonies  this 
officer  charged  monopoly  prices  for  his  services.  This  led 
to  numerous  acts  regulating  the  fees  which  he  might  legally 
charge.1  Still,  the  remuneration  was  usually  sufficient  to  con- 
stitute a  handsome  salary.1  This  is  further  evidenced  by  the 
fact  that  enterprising  young  men,  like  Washington  and  Jeffer- 
son, made  surveying  their  profession. 

The  quasi-public  charges  of  attorneys  at  law  caused  so  much 
dissatisfaction,  that  in  the  end  laws  were  enacted  providing 
maximum  charges,2  and  forbidding  any  attorney  to  refuse  to 
plead  a  case  without  just  grounds.  The  large  number  of  un- 
scrupulous and  incompetent  lawyers  was  perhaps  responsible  for 
enactments,  providing  that  attorneys  should  pass  satisfactory 
examinations  before  admission  to  the  bar.3  The  fees  of  numer- 
ous other  public  or  quasi-public  officials  were  from  time  to  time 
regulated  or  fixed  in  many  of  the  colonies. 

D.       CHURCH  AND   SCHOOL  FEES  IN    THE    COLONIES. 

It  is  perhaps  well  understood,  that  the  colonial  church  and 
state  were  not  separate  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term.  The 
church  still  exercised  many  political  or  state  functions,  and  was 
supported,  indirectly  at  least,  by  the  state.*     It  is  true  that  at 

1  The  law  of  New  York  even  went  so  far  as  to  pay  the  surveyor  a  fixed 
salary,  and  provided  that  all  fees  be  paid  into  the  treasury.  Laws  1785, 
XXXII.  Surveyors'  fees  fixed  at  100  lbs.  of  tobacco  for  making  a  survey  of 
of  100  acres  of  land,  in  1661.     Statutes  of  Virginia,  II,  99;  III,  330. 

2  Attorneys  on  admission  to  the  bar  were  required  to  take  oath  that  they 
would  not  charge  unreasonable  fees.  (1732.)  Statutes  at  Large,  Hen- 
ning,  IV,  360.  Attorneys  fees  regulated  in  Virginia.  Laws,  III,  162; 
II,  479. 

3  South  Carolina  license  to  practice  law;  fees  1£  10s.  Laws,  1791,  V, 
156;  1785,  IV,  699,  fees  1£  10s;  1736,  fee  4£. 

4  There  was  no  distinction  in  Connecticut  between  the  town,  the  church 
and  the  school,  as  far  as  taxes  were  concerned.  Every  inhabitant  was 
compelled  to  help  maintain  each.  History  of  Taxation  in  Connecticut. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Vol.  14,  No.  8,  62. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  Ill 

first  the  idea,  that  the  minister  should  be  supported  by  volun- 
tary contributions,  was  tried.  But  the  force  of  custom  was  not 
strong  enough  to  make  everyone  pay  these  voluntary  contri- 
butions, so  legal  compulsion  was  resorted  to.  In  the  South, 
however,  this  method  was  not  even  tried.  The  laws1  here  pro- 
vided, that  the  ministers  should  receive  a  twentieth  of  all  the  pro- 
duce, a  charge  corresponding  to  the  old  church  tithes  in  England, 
and  the  "centiemes"  in  France.  These  laws  were,  however,  soon 
repealed. 

In  almost  all  of  the  colonies,  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  ob- 
tained a  large  portion  of  their  remuneration  from  fees,  collec- 
ted for  both  ecclesiastical  and  political  services.  They  acted  as 
registers  of  births,2  marriages  and  deaths,  and  were  given  fees 
for  each  registry;  and,  in  so  far  as  they  acted  in  this  capacity, 
they  were  public  officers.  In  some  provinces  they  had  power 
to  issue  marriage  licenses,3  and  everywhere  they  were  entitled 
to  the  fees,  fixed  by  law,  for  performing  the  marriage  cere- 
mony* and  other  purely  ecclesiastical  functions.  One  law  even 
went  so  far  as  to  provide  a  fine,  in  case  a  larger  fee  was  charged 
than  the  law  allowed. 

The  colonial  schools,  which  existed  only  in  the  North,  were 
also  largely  supported  by  fees,5  paid  by  the  pupils.  It  was  at 
times  found  necessary  to  appropriate   money   to   make   up   the 

1  "The  minister  shall  have  the  twentieth  calf,  pigge,  and  kidd,"  etc. 
Statutes  at  Large,  Virginia  1632,  I. 

2  Statutes  at  Large,  Virginia,  II,  54.  Laws,  New  Hampshire,  1791,  p. 
297.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Vol.  I,  Parish  Institutions  in 
Maryland. 

In  Massachusetts  the  clerk  of  court  received  3  d.  for  each  birth,  death, 
or  marriage  which  he  recorded.     Colonial  Laws,  1639,  p.  188. 

3  In  North  Carolina  a  fine  of  5£  was  imposed  on  any  layman  who  per- 
formed the  marriage  ceremony  in  a  parish  where  there  was  a  clergyman, 
one-half  of  which  fine  went  to  the  clergy.  Francis  L.  Hawks,  History 
of  North  Carolina,  II,  170. 

4  Fees  fixed  for  performing  a  marriage  ceremony,  preaching  a  funeral 
sermon,  etc.    Henning's  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  55. 

*  History  of  Taxation  in  Connecticut,  Vol.  14,  p.  06.  Boone's  Edu- 
cation in  the  United  States,  p.  19.  "They,  (the  schools)  were  not  free, 
tuition  was  paid  for  all." 

Wickhershain's  History  of  Education  in  Pennsylvania,  p.  182. 


112  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

deficiency  for  those  pupils  whose  parents  were  too  poor  to  pay. 
This  led  to  regular  appropriations.  As  the  schoolmaster  did 
not  receive  enough  fees  for  his  pedagogic  services  to  support 
himself  and  family,  he  was  compelled  to  supplement  his  income 
from  this  source  by  serving  in  other  capacities.  In  fact  it  was 
quite  customary  to  have  him  serve  in  an  ecclesiastical,  educa- 
tional, and  public  capacity1  at  one  and  the  same  time,  and  for 
each  of  these  services  he  received  fees.  In  this  way,  that  is, 
by  holding  several  offices,  the  schoolmaster  was  able  to  obtain 
a  livelihood  out  of  the  few  meager  fees,  which  each  position 
yielded. 

The  relation  of  the  fee  system  in  colonial  days  to  higher  edu- 
cation, is  an  important  subject  which  can  only  be  touched  upon. 
Many  license  fees  were  early  turned  over  to  support  colleges  and 
schools.2  In  Virginia  the  charter  of  William  and  Mary  College 
provided  that  it  should  receive  the  fees  and  profits  of  the  sur- 
veyor-general's office,  which  at  that  time  were  not  inconsider- 
able in  amount.3  In  the  same  spirit  is  an  early  law  of  Maryland 
which  provided  that  all  sums  received  for  marriage,  ordinary, 
hawkers'  and  retailers'  licenses  on  the  Eastern  shore  be  applied 
to  the  use  of  Washington  College,4  and  that  all  those  collected 
on  the  Western  shore  be  applied  to  St.  John's  College.5 

Boone's  Education  in  the  United  States,  p.  12,  foot-note.  The 
duties  of  a  New  England  schoolmaster  were:  (1)  to  act  as  a  court 
messenger,  (2)  to  serve  summons,  (3)  to  conduct  certain  ceremonial  services 
of  church,  (4)  to  lead  Sunday  choir,  (5)  to  ring  bell  for  public  worship,  (6) 
to  dig  graves,  (7)  to  take  charge  of  school,  (8)  to  perform  other  occasional 
duties. 

2  Ferry  between  Boston  and  Charlestown  licensed  1659.  Revenues  granted 
to  Harvard  College.     Colonial  Laws,  Mass.,  p.  139. 

3  Virginia  law  of  1752  granted  the  receipts  of  peddlers'  licenses,  at  the 
rate  of  20£  for  each  license,  to  William  and  Mary  College.  Statutes,  Hen- 
ning,  VI,  245.  Another  law  of  1.759  reduced  these  fees  to  3£  for  each 
license.    Ibid.,  VII,  285. 

'Laws,  Md.,  1784,  Ch.  7,  §§  3,  5,  6,  8,  15. 
6  Ibid.,  Ch.  37,  §§22,  23,  32. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  113 

E.   COLONIAL  INSPECTION  FEES. 

Aside  from   ferry,  bridge,  and  road-tolls,  the   inspection  fees  \ 
were  the  ones  which  most  directly  touched  the  every-day  life  of  \ 
the  colonist;  even  though  they  were  by  no  means  so  numerous    l 
or  important  as  they  became  after  the  revolution.     In  the  South    I 
tobacco  had  already  become  the   great   staple,  and  it    was  early 
found  necessary  to  require  all  tobacco  offered  for  sale  to  be  in- 
spected.    The  first    statute   on    this    subject  was    passed  in  the 
colony  of  Virginia  in  1629.     This  provided  that  all  tobacco  ten- 
dered in  payment  of  debts  ]  should  first  be  viewed  and  stamped 
by  a  tobacco  viewer  or  inspector.     In  other  words,  this  law  de-* 
cided  what  kind  of  tobacco  should  be  legal  tender  in  payment^ 
of  debts.     But  there  were  other  causes  which  led  up  to  this  leg-  * 
islation.     Among   these   may   be   mentioned   the   fact   that  the 
price  of  Virginia   tobacco  had  been  steadily   declining  in  Eng-   i 
land,  because  of  its  inferiority  to  the   Spanish  tobacco.2     Fre- 
quent  complaints  were  made  by  the  merchants,  who  supposed  that 
this  inferiority  was  largely  due  to  the  carelessness  of  the  planters, 
and  as  a  result  an   attempt  at  tobacco  inspection  was  made  as 
early  as  1619.3     Another  law  was  passed  in  1630,*  the  ostensible 
purpose  of  which  was  to  prevent  the  exportation  of  bad  tobacco. 
This  was  further  amended  in  1632,  "  in  order  to  raise  the  price 
of  exported  tobacco,  by  improving  its  quality."5 

The  same  purpose  is  stated  in  the  preamble  of  a  provincial  in- 
spection law  of  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,  in  the  following 
words:  "  to  encourage  the  exportation  and  manufacture  of  the 
best  pot-  and  pearl-ashes,  to  secure  credit  abroad  to  our  produce, 
and  thus  displace  those  hitherto  imported  from  Russia  and  other 
foreign  countries. " 6     Provision  is  here   made  for   the  appoint- 

1  Statutes,  Henning,  I,  152.    Ibid.,  VIII,  pp.  95,  223. 

2  Virginia  was  forced  to  inspect  tobacco  because  the  price  was  continu- 
ally forced  down  by  the  poor  quality.  Dinwiddie,  Papers,  Va.  Hist. 
Colls.,  I,  38. 

3  Statutes,  Henning,  I,  205. 

4  All  tobacco  intended  for  export  in  Pennsylvania  to  be  inspected  (1656).- 
Hazard,  Annals  of  Pa.,  p.  225. 

6  Statutes,  Henning,  I,  190. 

•  Provincial  Laws  of  Mass.  Bay,  III,  804-806.    Similar  provisions  en- 
acted in  New  York.    Laws,  1784,  1, 100. 
8 


114  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

ment  of  assayers  of  ashes,  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  test  the 
quality  of  all  ashes  intended  for  export.  Another  law  passed 
by  the  same  body  in  1698,  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
searchers  and  sealers  of  leather  was  enacted,  "  for  the  better  pre- 
venting of  deceits  and  abuses  by  tanners,  curriers  and  dressers, 
or  workers-up,  of  leather."1  A  somewhat  similar  enactment 
was  enforced  very  early  in  the  colony  of  New  Plymouth.2  These 
laws  regarding  the  inspection  of  leathers  were  naturally  made 
necessary  by  the  fact,  that  a  large  number  of  inexperienced 
tanners  attempted  to  work  hides  into  leather,  and  thus  flooded 
the  market  with  a  worthless  product.  The  object  of  this  inspec- 
tion legislation  was,  therefore,  to  protect  the  consumers  at  home 
against  the  frauds  or  inefficiency  of  the  producers  in  this  indus- 
try.8 The  causes  of  later  laws  of  the  same  character  may  be 
gathered  from  the  following  preamble  of  a  statute,  passed  by  the 
General  Court  of  Massachusetts  on  June  21,  1710:*  "Whereas 
boards,  plank,  and  timber  are  usually  sold  by  the  measure  set 
upon  them  at  the  mills  where  they  are  sawn,  and  bundles  of 
shingles  are  marked  for  a  greater  number  than  what  they  con- 
tain, wherein  great  fraud  and  deceit  is  too  often  practiced  by 
illminded  persons,  for  prevention  whereof  .  .  .  " —  meas- 
urers of  boards  and  the  like  were  to  be  annually  elected  in 
maritime  towns,  who  were  required  to  view  all  lumber  intended 
for  sale. 

Many  of  these  early  inspection  laws  may  be  said  to  have  orig- 
inated, indirectly  at  least,  in  the  necessity  of  having  official 
gaugers  of  casks  and  other  packages,  in  order  to  secure  uni- 
formity and  avoid  fraud  in  the  measurement  of  quantities  bought 
or  sold.  Thus  we  find  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Massachusetts, 
to  require  the  gaugers  of  casks  and  measures,  not  only  to  verify 
the  size  of  the  cask  or  barrel  of  pork  or  beef,  but  also  to  inspect 

1  Ibid.,  313-314.  An  earlier  statute  dated  1641.  Colonial  Laws,  Mass., 
p.  170. 

2  Charter  and  Laws  of  New  Plymouth,  p.  189.  Similar  provision  in 
Mass.  in  1641.     Col.  Laws,  p.  170. 

3  Complaints  were  common  about  poorly  tanned  leather  and  shoes  made 
therefrom.     Bruce,  History  of  Virginia,  II,  477,  481. 

4 Provincial  Laws,  Mass.,  I,  656. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  115 

the  contents.  This  new  duty,  placed  upon  the  old  gaugers  of 
casks,  was  not  looked  upon  as  anything  new  or  novel,  but  was 
designed  to  better  carry  out  the  purpose  of  the  old  statutes. \ 
In  fact  it  was  not  even  called  inspection,  in  the  earliest  Mas- 
sachusetts laws,  but  seems  to  have  been  considered  as  a  part  of 
the  duties  of  sealers  of  weights  and  measures,  and  gaugers  of 
casks.  But  the  element  of  inspection  for  some  definite  purpose, 
soon  becomes  so  prominent  as  to  overshadow,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent, the  object  of  the  old  laws,  resulting  finally  in  special  in- 
spection laws,  entirely  distinct  from  the  enactments  regulating 
the  sealers  and  gaugers  of  casks.  As  an  example  may  be  men- 
tioned the  Massachusetts  act  of  1641,  entitled  "an  act  for  the 
preventing  deceit  of  any  person  in  the  packing  of  fish,  beef,  or 
pork  to  be  put  on  sale  in  this  or  other  jurisdictions."  2 

Numerous  instances  may  be  found  in  the  colonial  laws  of  any 
one  of  the  colonies,  where  attempts  are  made  to  insure  integrity 
both  as  to  quantity  and  quality  of  goods  put  upon  the  market. 
Some  laws,  however,  are  much  more  far-reaching,  in  that  they 
were  intended  to  regulate  the  price  as  well. 

The  economic  condition  which  must  be  regarded  as  the  ulti- 
mate cause  of  much  of  this  legislation,  is  the  lack  of  a  currency 
or  suitable  medium  of  exchange.  Most  of  the  exchanges  of  this 
period  were  barter,  and  were  based  on  commodities  rather  than 
money  values.  Tobacco  especially  was  used  as  money,  and  was 
recognized  as  such  by  law  in  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  South 
Carolina.  Fines  and  penalties  in  many  colonies  were  paid  in 
shingles,  or  other  products;  and  taxes  and  fees  were  almost 
everywhere  levied  and  collected  in  kind.  The  need  therefore 
was  soon  felt,  of  having  some  public  official  to  test  and  appraise 
this  heterogeneous  currency.  The  attempts  to  regulate  the 
prices  of  certain  commodities  can  be  explained  in  the  same  way. 
This  was  not  sumptuary  legislation,  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
laws  and  regulations  of  the  early  Kings  of  France  were.  The 
liberty-loving  spirit  of  the  colonists  would  tolerate  no  such 
restraints.     These  laws,   providing  for  measures  of  wood  3  and 

1  Provincial  Laws,  Mass.  Bay  Colony,  I,  50;  II,  129-131. 

2  Col.  Laws,  Mass.,  p.  130. 

3  Provincial  Laws,  Mass.,  V,  1119. 


116  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

grain,  gaugers  of  casks,  inspectors  of  provisions  of  various 
kinds,  were  intended  to  facilitate  exchanges  rather  than  to  check 
them,  to  stimulate  and  increase  public  and  private  credit,  by 
furnishing  greater  stability  to  their  standard  of  deferred  pay- 
ments, and,  finally,  to  insure  certainty  regarding  quantity  and 
quality  of  the  income  of  the  public  treasury. 

It  may  perhaps  not  be  evident  at  first  sight,  that  there  is  a 
vital  relation  between  this  inspection  legislation  and  the  fee 
system.  It  was  the  fee  system  which  made  all  this  legislation 
possible.  These  inspectors  were  invariable  paid  by  means 
of  fees.  According  to  some  statutes  half  was  collected  from  the 
buyer,  and  half  from  the  seller,  while  in  other  colonies  the  seller 
was  forced  to  bear  the  whole  expense.  This  office  became  in 
some  places  quite  lucrative,  especially  in  rapidly  growing  cen- 
ters of  population.  The  number  of  commodities  requiring  inspec- 
tion were  also  multiplied,  resulting  very  often  in  a  proportional 
increase  in  the  number  of  inspectors,  until  at  last  we  find  every 
town  supplied  with  one  or  more  officials  of  this  kind.1  These 
inspectors,  as  has  already  been  intimated,  were  very  often  paid 
by  a  certain  allowance  of  the  commodity  inspected,  and  even 
when  the  fee  was  reckoned  in  money,  it  was  often  commuted  or 
paid  in  produce.  At  first,  therefore,  it  was  quite  customary  for 
the  inspectors  to  carry  on  a  trade  in  the  product  inspected. 
This  naturally  opened  the  door  for  unscrupulous  officials  to  en- 
rich themselves,  by  means  of  all  sorts  of  frauds  and  deceptions, 
both  in  inspecting  the  commodities  of  others  and  in  marking 
their  own  produce.  To  prevent  these  evils  laws  soon  appeared 
forbidding,  under  heavy  penalties,  any  inspector  to  trade  in  the 
commodity  which  he  inspected.  Many  other  regulations  were 
also  enacted  to  put  an  end  to  this  prevalent  malfeasance  of  office. 

F.       MISCELLANEOUS    FEES. 

Pilots  were  found  to  be  necessary  long  before  the  colonies  had 
developed  any  commerce  of  their  own;  in  fact,  they  were  all  the 
more  necessary  in  the  early  period,  before  the  bays  and  channels 
had  been  thoroughly  sounded  and  the  navigable  waters  explored. 

1  Colonial  Laws,  Mass.,  p.  170. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  117 

The  fees  which  they  might  be  allowed  to  collect  were  therefore 
early  prescribed  by  law.  But  in  this  case  the  fees  were  regu- 
lated and  fixed,  not  so  much  to  prevent  overcharges  for  pilotage, 
as  to  provide  sufficient  remuneration  in  this  occupation  in  or- 
der to  enable  trustworthy  and  efficient  men  to  make  it  their  pro- 
fession. The  fees  were  therefore  purposely  made  high,  so  as  to 
make  them  an  incentive  for  efficient  and  reliable  men  to  devote 
themselves  to  this  duty,  in  preference  to  the  many  other  prom- 
ising fields  of  employment  then  open  to  them.  Furthermore, 
the  fees  had  to  be  comparatively  high,  if  the  pilot  should  ob- 
tain a  livelihood,  because  there  were  so  few  vessels  to  make  use 
of  his  service.  But  the  growth  of  commerce  resulted  in  an 
enormous  increase  in  the  income  of  pilots.  The  old  fees  soon 
began  to  appear  burdensome,  and  finally  resulted  in  an  agita- 
tion for  their  reduction  by  law.  Numerous  laws  followed  which 
attempted  to  establish  the  fees  of  pilots,  and  in  various  ways 
to  regulate  the  profession.  South  Carolina  even  went  so  far  as 
to  pay  her  pilots  salaries,  and  collect  all  pilot  fees  at  the  cus- 
tom house  for  the  use  of  the  state.1 

Harbor  fees2  of  various  kinds  were  also  charged  at  the  most 
important  ports.  At  first,  however,  they  were  not  collected  with 
any  regularity.  In  the  north  these  duties  were  usually  collected 
for  some  definite  purpose,  as  the  maintenance  of  fortifications 
or  the  improvement  of  harbors,3  and  consisted  in  a  pound  of 
powder  or  more,  according  to  the  size  of  the  vessel.*  In  Mary- 
land the  port  duty  was  fixed  at  a  pound  and  a  half  of  powder 
and  three  pounds  of  shot  for  each  ton  of  burden.  This  was  af- 
terwards commuted  into  a  money  charge  of  14d.  per  ton.  In 
Connecticut5  they  were  collected  during  King  George's  War  for 

'Ibid.,  1778,  IV,  432,  184,  IV,  598. 

2  Statutes,  S.  C,  1690,  pp.  51,  93;  1700,  p.  173;  1702,  p.  193. 

3  Laws,  S.  C,  1785,  IV,  656.  Laws,  Va.,  1656,  I,  176.  Tonnage  fees 
levied  in  powder  and  shot  according  to  the  size  of  vessel. 

4  Harbor  fees  for  the  maintenance  of  fortifications  at  Charlestown  and 
Boston  were  collected  at  the  rate  of  6d.  per  ton  from  all  other  than  Eng- 
lish and  Colonial  vessels.  The  latter  were  required  to  pay  only  lOd.  per 
vessel.     Col.  Laws,  Mass.,  1645,  pp.  159-160. 

6  Taxation  in  Connecticut,  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  XIV, 
No.  8,  p.  59. 


118  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

the  protection  of  New  London,  and  again  during  the  French 
and  Indian  War  for  the  maintenance  of  a  war  ship.  These  port 
duties  were  also  collected  for  the  maintenance  of  lighthouses, 
and  other  maritime  improvements  or  equipments. 

The  positions  of  searchers,  surveyors,  collectors,  and  the  like, 
in  the  more  important  harbors,  were  early  known  to  be  very 
lucrative.  Under  the  government  of  the  province  of  New  Neth- 
erlands and  the  colony  of  New  York,  the  collectors  of  the  port 
of  New  York  received  a  salary  of  55£,  surveyors  and  searchers 
60£,  comptrollers  55£,  land  waiters  50£,  tide  waiters,  30£;  in 
addition  to  which  each  received  a  large  amount  of  fees.1  In 
many  harbors  wharfage  fees  were  also  collected.  In  Massachu- 
setts these  were  graded  in  amount  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  commodity  placed  upon  the  wharf.2  In  1752  Virginia  col- 
lected lighthouse  fees  at  the  rate  of  2d.  per  ton  from  all  vessels 
entering  the  Chesapeake,  for  the  maintainance  of  her  light- 
houses.3 

Many  other  kinds  of  fees  were  .from  time  to  time  collected, 
but  their  importance  lies  mainly  in  the  fact,  that  they  are  in 
many  instances  the  forerunners  of  later  charges.  As  an  ex- 
ample, may  be  mentioned  the  fees  for  assessing  and  collecting 
taxes,  which  in  the  early  period  formed  part  of  the  perquisites 
of  the  sheriff  or  other  judicial  officer.4 

Q.       COLONIAL    PEES    AND  POLITICAL    LIBERTY. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  English  Colonies  of  America  did  not 
suddenly  become  conscious  of  their  political  rights  in  1766. 
The  doctrine  that  "  taxation  without  representation  is  tyranny" 
had  in  its  essence  been  discussed  and  asserted  for  nearly  a  cen- 
tury.    The  stand  which  was  taken  in  1765  was  the  result  of  nu- 

1  Civil  List,  N.  Y.,  1887,  p.  179.  In  1679,  Miller,  the  collector  of  customs 
of  North  Carolina,  is  said  to  have  collected  $5,000  in  cash  and  thirty-three 
hogsheads  of  tobacco  in  six  months.  J.  W.  Moore,  History  of  North 
Carolina,  p.  23. 

2  Colonial  Laws,  Mass.,  1647,  p.  147. 

3  Statutes,  Henning,  VI,  228. 

4  The  Attorney  General  of  the  province  of  New  Netherlands  acted  in  the 
double  capacity  of  attorney  general  and  sheriff.  Civil  List,  N.  Y.,  1887, 
p.  176. 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  119 

merous  contentions  with  the  various  governors  over  the  fees  of 
office  which  these  could  legally  collect.  The  conclusion  of  each 
of  these  disputes  left  the  people  more  conscious  of  their  politi- 
cal rights,  and  led  to  stronger  demands  for  their  recognition. 
No  one  of  the  colonies  has  been  entirely  free  from  struggles  of 
this  kind.  Under  proprietary  governments  the  governor  was 
continually  tormented  by  the  proprietor  to  find  lucrative  places 
for  the  latter's  friends  and  connections.  The  fees  and  perqui- 
sites which  these  favorites  collected  in  North  Carolina,  became 
in  time  so  unbearable  as  to  result  in  an  open  quarrel  between 
the  two  houses  of  the  legislature.  The  lower  house  representing 
the  people  finally  won  the  day,  and  passed  an  act  in  1762  regu- 
lating the  fees  of  office  which  might  be  collected  by  the  ap- 
pointees of  the  Governor.  A  similar  struggle  took  place  in 
Maryland,  over  an  act  passed  by  the  legislature  providing  that 
the  port  duty,  which  up  to  that  time  had  been  collected  by  the 
Governor,  nominally  for  the  support  of  the  forts  and  fortifica- 
tions, should  be  granted  him  by  law,  but  should  not  be  levied  as 
his  prerogative.  The  preamble  of  this  act  stated  "  that  it  was 
not  their  intention  to  deprive  the  governor  of  an  honorable  sup- 
port, but  only  to  assert  and  maintain  for  themselves,  their  con- 
stituents and  posterity,  that  principle  and  most  essential 
branch  of  liberty  to  which  they  conceive  themselves  entitled 
as  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  of  not  being  liable  to  the  payment 
of  money,  tax,  impost  or  duty,  except  such  as  shall  be  war- 
ranted, raised,  and  assessed  by  the  laws  of  the  province."1  A 
similar  dispute  arose  in  1754  regarding  the  so-called  duty 
on  ordinary  licenses  which  the  lower  house  claimed  as  public 
revenue.2  The  history  of  every  other  colony  presents  numerous 
instances  of  this  kind.  The  citizens  of  Massachusetts  were  re- 
peatedly opposed  to  their  governors  on  the  question  of  fees  of 
office  or  other  prerogatives,  while  New  York,  after  a  long  ser- 
ies of  contests  on  just  such  questions,  finally  succeeded  in  mak- 
ing the  governor  amenable  to  the  legislature,  both  in  his  ap- 
pointments and  in  the  collection  of  fees  of  office.    Liberty-loving 

1  MacMahon,  History  of  Maryland,  p.  179-180. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  298. 


120  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

Vermont  rose  in  open  revolt  against  the  right  claimed  by  her 
governor  to  collect  extortionate  land  patent  fees.1 

These  objections  were  not  made  all  at  once,  but  were  raised 
against  certain  specific  fees,  which  had  become  especially  bur- 
densome. Being  thus  led,  unconsciously  almost,  to  discuss  and 
formulate  their  privileges  as  opposed  to  the  prerogatives  of 
the  crown  and  the  governor,  the  colonists  gradually  evolved  the 
principles  which  were  afterwards  laid  down  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.  Furthermore,  these  disputes  tended  to  keep 
alive  the  spirit  of  liberty,  and  kept  the  colonists  alert  to  pre- 
vent infringement  upon  their  rights,  causing  them  at  times  even 
to  seize  upon  and  overthrow  old  established  prerogatives  and 
perquisites.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  see  the  colonial  gov- 
ernors, in  spite  of  their  aggressiveness,  constantly  losing  ground 
to  these  persevering  frontiersmen. 

The  final  struggle,  which  resulted  in  the  achievement  of  Ameri- 
can independence,  was  but  a  repetition  of  the  protests  which 
had  been  made  again  and  again,  against  the  imposition  of  ex- 
tortionate and  unauthorized  taxes  under  the  guise  of  fees.  It 
came  about  in  this  way:  No  direct  taxes  had  been  imposed  on 
the  colonies  by  Great  Britain  up  to  1765.  Plantation  dues 
and  duties  had  been  levied,  but  these  were  merely  for  regula- 
tion of  trade.  Having  learned  from  past  experience  that  Eng- 
lishmen were  likely  to  object  to  new  direct  taxes,  the  ministry 
determined  to  use  a  method  of  obtaining  revenue  that  had  been 
successfully  employed  in  the  home  country,  namely,  by  levying 
the  taxes  under  the  guise  of  fees.  They  pretended  that  the  new 
stamp  charges  were  of  the  same  nature  as  the  payments  for 
postal  stamps.2  These  stamp  taxes  were,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
not  very  heavy;  indeed,  they  were  much  less  burdensome  than 

1  For  an  account  of  the  struggle  over  the  "  pistole  "  fee  for  land  patents 
in  Virginia,  see  Dinwiddie's  Papers,  I,  pp.  44-47,  363. 

2Dowell,  Taxation  in  England,  II,  147.  "  Is  not  the  Post  Office,  which 
they  have  received,  a  tax  as  well  as  a  regulation?  "  was  asked  of  Benjamin 
Franklin.  He  replied:  "No,  the  money  paid  for  the  postage  of  a  letter, 
is  not  in  the  nature  of  a  tax.  It  is  merely  a  quantum  meruit  for  a  serv- 
ice done.  No  person  is  obliged  to  pay  money  if  he  does  not  choose  to  re- 
ceive the  service.     He  may  employ  a  special  messenger  if  he  likes.    .    .    ." 


Fees  in  the  American  Colonies.  121 

many  of  the  so-called  fees,  which  had  repeatedly  been  submitted  to 
in  England.  But  the  colonists  refused  to  concede  that  the  stamp 
charges  were  payments  for  regulation.  The  result  of  this  was 
the  American  Revolution,  which  terminated,  as  every  one  knows, 
in  American  Independence. 

H.       GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS    OP    THE    FEE    SYSTEM   IN    THE 

COLONIES. 

The  most  striking  features  of  the  colonial  financial  system  is 
that  the  greatest  part  more  or  less  of  the  revenue  was  derived  from 
fees,  inasmuch  as  all  offices  were  self-supporting.  There  was 
scarcely  an  official  who  did  not  charge  and  collect  for  his  own  use 
fees  of  one  kind  or  another.  The  "  social  contract "  theory  of 
the  state,  which  was  commonly  accepted  for  a  time,  really  had 
some  foundation  in  the  actual  colonial  conditions.  Service  and 
counter-service  was  the  theory  on  which  the  entire  method  of 
remunerating  public  officials  was  based.  It  worked  very  well 
for  a  time,  that  is,  during  the  primitive  period;  but  as  soon  as 
the  population  became  dense,  and  the  amount  of  business  to  be 
performed  by  public  officials  increased,  opportunities  for  fraud 
set  in,  which  lead  to  the  substitution  of  the  salary  for  the  fee 
system.  Another  characteristic  of  the  colonial  period,  which 
belongs  to  all  truck  economies,  is  the  fact  that  fees  were  paid 
in  kind,  that  is,  in  cattle,  tobacco,'  corn,  powder,  shot,  and  so 
on.  Furthermore,  the  undifferentiated  state  of  the  public  serv- 
ice made  it  possible  for  one  person  to  hold  several  offices  at  the 
same  time,  and,  by  means  of  fees  from  each,  to  eke  out  enough 
to  make  a  fair  compensation. 

The  early  colonial  fee-system  contains  the  germ  from  which 
the  modern  fee-system  developed.  Conditions  were  such  that 
but  few  license  and  inspection  fees  were  necessary,  and  harbor 2 
and  pilot  fees  were  in  their  infancy;  while  court  fees  were  well 

1  A  law  was  passed  in  Virginia  to  allow  those  who  did  not  raise  tobacco 
to  pay  their  fees  in  money. 

2  Fees  of  shipping  officers  in  Mass.  ports  in  1663:  For  taking  bond,  5s.; 
receiving  and  entering  certificate,  2s.  6d.;  for  giving  and  recording  certifi- 
cate, 2s.  6d.     Colonial  Laws,  p.  223. 


122  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

developed,  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  were  taken  directly  from 
the  English  system  of  jurisprudence.  Finally  a  ferment,  in  the 
form  of  dissatisfaction,  was  present  which  was  destined  to  lead 
to  the  gradual  abolition  of  the  fee  system,  as  a  means  of  direct 
remuneration  of  public  officials. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
FEES  IN  THE  EARLY  COMMONWEALTHS  (1787-1830.) 

A.       GENERAL    TENDENCIES. 

The  revolution  does  not  represent  any  definite  break  or  divid- 
ing line  in  the  development  of  the  fee  system.  The  increased 
industrial  and  political  activity  of  the  decades  following  the 
war,  forced  to  the  front  the  necessity  of  state  regulation  of  vari- 
ous matters,  which  necessity  had  not  been  felt  during  the  colo- 
nial days.  The  political  self-consciousness  of  the  individual 
commonwealths,  which  was  particularly  strong  during  this 
youthful  period,  manifested  itself  in  more  direct  state  interfer- 
ence with  the  affairs  of  individuals  than  in  any  succeeding 
epoch.  In  general  the  individual  state  (commonwealth)  was  the 
important  political  unit,  to  which  all  eyes  were  turned.  This 
often  exercised  its  authority  directly,  without  the  use  of  the  in- 
termediate political  units,  in  the  form  of  the  city,  county,  and 
township  organizations,  so  often  employed  at  the  present  day. 
The  individual  citizen  was  then  likely  to  meet  or  violate  a  state 
law  or  state  regulation  at  every  turn ;  while  now  it  is  the  mu- 
nicipal ordinances  with  which  men  come  in  most  direct  contact. 
Local  and  special  laws  therefore  were  the  order  of  the  day  in 
every  legislature.  State  regulation  and  state  activity  in  one 
locality  required  one  schedule  of  fees  to  pay  all  expenses,  and 
in  another  locality  a  different  rate. 


The  Early  Period  in  the  United  States.  123 

There  is  perhaps  no  body  of  legislation  which  so  regularly 
affects  the  economic  conditions  of  the  time  and  locality  as  the 
early  laws  prescribing  regulations  involving  fee  payments.  Uni- 
formity in  legislation  was  not  aimed  at  in  that  day.  The  per- 
iod may  most  appropriately  be  called  the  "Era  of  special  legis- 
lation. "  Each  individual  ferry  and  toll  bridge  had  a  separate 
and  distinct  tariff  of  fees  prescribed  by  the  legislature.  The 
pilots  in  one  port  or  river  were  granted  one  scale  of  fees,  while 
those  in  a  different  harbor  were  given  another  schedule.  The  in- 
spection fees  were  at  times  made  high  or  low  according  to  the 
character  and  location  of  the  inspection  office.  General  laws,  es- 
tablishing fees  or  charges  of  various  kinds,  came  later.  Even  the 
court  fees  were  at  times  made  higher  in  one  district  than  in  an- 
other. The  fee-regulations  of  the  Federal  Government  had  the 
same  characteristics.  One  schedule  was  applied  to  one  port,  and  a 
different  one  to  another.  The  marshals  of  some  localities  were 
allowed  to  make  certain  charges,  while  in  others  different  rates 
were  fixed,  because  of  the  differences  in  population  and  econo- 
mic conditions. 

B.       SOME    NEW    LICENSE    FEES. 

One  state  after  another  resorted  to  the  licensing  of  lotteries 
and  sometimes  even  to  state  management  of  them.1  Fees  were 
also  charged  for  permission  to  sell  lottery  tickets.  In  the  same 
way  we  find  the  New  York  legislature  in  1802  making  a  pro- 
vision 1;or  licensing  the  occupation  of  peddlers,2  which  up  to 
that  time  had  been  a  forbidden  pursuit;  while  the  southern 
states  had,  from  the  earliest  colonial  period,  not  only  licensed 
and  regulated  hawkers  and  peddlers,  but  even  derived  consid- 
erable revenue  from  this  source.*  Also  the  licenses  to  maintain 
billiard  tables  were  required  very  early  in  the  South,  while  in 
several  New  England  states  that  privilege  was  not  granted  till 
the  beginning  of  this  century.  In  all  the  states,  however,  such 
licenses  were  granted  directly  by  some  commonwealth  official, 
and  the  fee  paid  therefor  was  for  the  use  of  the  state,  and  not 

1  McMaster,  History  of  the  Ameriean  People,  I,  583. 

2  Same  provision  in  Mass.  Laws,  1799, 1,  243. 


124  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

to  the  municipalities,  as  is  customary  at  present.  In  1806  l  the 
Massachusetts  Court  of  General  Sessions  passed  an  act  giving 
power  to  certain  state  officials  to  grant  theater  licenses,  which 
had  been  forbidden  up  to  that  date.2  The  voice  of  the  munici- 
pality was  moreover  beginning  to  be  recognized;  as  is  seen  in 
the  fact  that  the  license  should  only  be  granted  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  selectmen  of  the  town. 

The  key  to  the  whole  situation  lies  in  the  fact,  that  the  ob- 
ject of  all  legislation  in  this  period  was  to  make  the  fee-collect- 
ing offices  self-supporting,  and  still  not  allow  the  officials  to  re- 
ceive more  than  a  fair  compensation  for  their  services.  This 
almost  impossible  task  necessitated  frequent  changes  to  corres- 
pond to  the  growth  in  population  and  industry  in  each  locality. 
In  general  it  may  be  said,  that  the  only  common  characteristic 
of  the  fee  legislation  of  the  different  states  during  this  period,  is 
the  tendency  of  the  states  to  perform  services  directly  in  the 
interest  of  the  public,  which  are  indirectly  a  benefit  to  individ- 
uals, and  to  collect  fees  for  such  services.  This  extension  of  state 
activity  manifests  itself  in  one  direction  in  one  state,  and  in  a 
different  one  in  another.  No  general  category  of  the  fee-system 
can  be  said  to  have  originated  in  the  period,  although  every 
state  introduced  new  regulations  and  collected  fees  which  were 
new,  as  far  as  the  individual  commonwealth  was  concerned. 

C.       DIFFERENTIATION    IN    ADMINISTRATIVE    MACHINERY. 

Prior  to  the  Revolution  many  of  the  states  had  no  adminis- 
trative machinery  for  assessing  and  collecting  taxes,  or  for  per- 
forming many  other  public  functions  necessary  to  the  existence 
of  the  modern  commonwealth.  Some  of  them  attempted  to  uti- 
lize the  judicial  machinery  which  they  had,  to  carry  on  the  new 
adminstrative  functions.  The  sheriff  is  thus  the  tax  collector  in 
a  few  Eastern  States  even  to  this  day.  But  as  taxation  became 
more  and  more  important,  it  was  found  necessary  to  make  the 
tax  collector  a  distinct  public  official.     In  the  same  way  the  as- 

1  Laws,  Mass.,  II,  150. 

2  Statutes,  S.  C,  1817,  par.  9.  p.  384.  Charleston  may  charge  not  less 
than  $500  for  theater  licenses. 


The  Early  Period  in  the  United  States.  125 

lessor  often  became  an  indispensable  official  in  the  apportion- 
ment and  collection  of  local  taxes.  These,  as  well  as  the  town 
and  county  treasurers,  became,  as  a  rule,  fee-paid  officials. 
Most  of  the  new  states  in  the  West  have  made  them  part  of 
their  political  machinery  from  the  very  beginning,  and  have  con- 
tinued to  remunerate  them  by  means  of  fees  down  to  the  present. 
The  only  difference  is,  that  the  rates  have  been  lowered  as 
the  amounts  to  be  collected  have  increased.1 

A  comparison  of  the  fee-system  of  this  period  with  that  of  a 
later  epoch,  demonstrates  very  clearly,  how  "division  of  labor" 
in  public  affairs  has  almost  kept  pace  with  that  of  industrial 
undertakings;  and,  furthermore,  brings  to  light  the  regular 
differentiation  which  has  been  going  on  in  all  public  offices. 
The  attorneys'  fees  allowed  by  law  in  1788  in  New  York,  in- 
cluded many  semi-official  charges  which  now  are  paid  to  recorders, 
clerks,  sheriffs,  newspapers,  and  the  like.  This  shows  that  the 
attorney  at  that  time  performed  many  of  the  functions  of  these 
officials;  in  other  words,  the  duties  of  the  attorney  have  been 
gradually  more  and  more  narrowed  and  limited  in  various 
ways.  As  an  example  of  this  may  be  mentioned  the  fact  that 
the  public  official  known  as  the  "  Schout  Fiscal  "  was  entrusted 
with  almost  every  conceivable  duty  except  judicial  decision  in 
the  early  colonial  courts  of  New  York.  He  combined  in  himself 
the  power  of  public  prosecutor  and  the  executive  duties  of 
sheriff.2  The  same  will  hold  of  almost  every  official  of  that  day 
when  compared  with  his  modern  successors.3 

1  An  example:  South  Carolina  paid  her  tax  collectors  7^  per  cent,  of 
the  amount  collected  in  1803,  while  in  1813  the  rate  was  reduced  to  3^  per 
cent.    Laws,  1813,  VI.,  712. 

2  History  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  New  York,  J.  W 
Brooks.    New  York,  1896,  p.  10. 

3  The  secretary  of  state  of  N.  Y.  was  at  first  also  commissioner  of  the 
land  office,  of  the  canal  board,  clerk  of  the  council  by  appointment,  clerk 
of  the  board  of  regents  of  the  state  university,  etc.  The  speaker  of  the 
House  of  Burgesses  also  held  the  position  of  treasurer  of  the  colony. 
Dinwiddie  Papers,  Va.  Hist.  Col.,  I,  73. 


126  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

D.       RELATIVE  IMPORTANCE  OP  SOME  OP    THE    EARLY    PEES. 

The  conditions  existing  in  the  earlier  settlements  made  some 
legislative  enactments  have  greater  significance  than  they  have 
at  present.  The  modern  method  of  building  durable  fences 
so  rapidly  and  cheaply,  for  example,  had  not  been  invented. 
Large  commons,  where  cattle  were  turned  out  to  pasture,  exist- 
ed in  all  the  original  states.  The  owners  of  cultivated  fields 
were  therefore  in  some  localities  compelled  by  law  to  fence 
them.  This  often  meant  an  enormous  amount  of  work,  and 
even  after  the  fields  had  been  fenced,  cattle  would  at  times 
break  through  the  inclosures;  in  such  cases  the  question  of 
damages  resolved  itself  into  whether  the  fence  was  legal  or  not. 
Fence-viewers  were  therefore  appointed  in  almost  every  county 
to  inspect  and  pronounce  upon  the  various  fences  in  dispute. 
These  officers  were  usually  paid  by  fees  which  were  of  no  minor 
importance  in  the  estimation  of  the  colonists.  An  examination 
of  any  of  the  early  statutes  will  show  a  large  percentage  of  acts 
which  relate  to  the  subject  of  preventing  swine  from  running 
at  large.  Now  one  township,  now  another  is  brought  under 
this  interdiction.  After  such  an  act  had  been  passed,  all  swine 
found  at  large  were  liable  to  be  impounded  and  held  by  the 
pound  master  until  his  fees  were  paid.  Poundage  fees  were 
thus  no  insignificant  item  to  the  early  farmers,  for  the  same 
reason  that  at  present  they  are  of  considerable  importance  in 
the  more  newly  settled  agricultural  districts  of  the  West. 

E.       INSPECTION    FEES. 

The  legislation  which  most  distinctly  manifests  the  tendency 
toward  state  intervention  on  the  part  of  the  early  common- 
wealths, is  the  inspection  laws  of  this  period.1  These,  many 
of  them,  had  their  origin  in  the  economic  needs  or  necessities  of 
the  colonial  period.  The  people  were  living  in  a  truck  economy. 
The  scarcity  of  money  made  it  necessary  to  pay  debts  in  com- 
modities.    Under  such  circumstances  it  was  just  as  much  to  the 

1  Maryland  required  the  inspection  of  hides,  leather,  lime,  lumber, 
shingles,  plaster  of  Paris,  flour,  salted  fish,  coal,  etc.    Laws,  1813-1832. 


The  Early  Period  in  the  United  States.  127 

advantage  of  the  buyer  as  the  seller  to  have  the  commodities  in- 
spected. Tobacco1  was  therefore  subject  to  the  most  rigorous 
inspection  law,  and  one  state  even  attempted  to  regulate  the 
amount  which  should  be  grown  in  order  to  prevent  fluctuations 
in  price.  Without  such  inspection,  a  debtor  might  pay  his 
debt  with  a  very  inferior  grade  of  tobacco,  while  on  the  other 
hand  the  creditor  might  refuse  to  accept  the  best  brand  of  to- 
bacco for  any  assignable  reason.  The  same  is  true  in  regard  to 
the  other  commodities.2  Debts  were  paid  in  any  one  of  the 
many  staples.  The  inspection  of  these  may  be  compared  to  the 
government  assaying  of  the  precious  metals  in  the  older  coun- 
tries. The  inspection  of  other  articles  originated  in  the  exten- 
sive export  trade  of  each  state;  especially  in  the  north,  where 
the  articles  which  came  under  the  inspection  laws  were  largely 
those  which  constituted  the  exports.  Thus  we  find  pot  and 
pearl  ashes3  subject  to  rigid  inspection  in  many  states;  salted 
fish,  beef,  pork,  flour,  and  many  other  commodities  were  very 
early  made  subject  to  compulsory  inspection.  The  fact  that  peo- 
ple were  accustomed  to  the  inspection  of  some  articles  made  it 
easy  to  extend  the  system  of  compulsory  inspection  to  other 
commodities.  Lumber,  hoops,  shingles,  grain,  bark,  leather, 
hides,  and  many  others,  were  added  to  the  list  which  required 
the  mark  or  brand  of  the  public  inspector  before  they  could  be 
sold.  In  the  south  the  inspection  laws  affected  pitch,  tar,  tur- 
pentine, tobacco,  flour,  lumber,  spirits;  in  short,  all  the  chief 
staples. 

Not  only  the  inspection  but  the  gauging  and  measuring  of 
commodities  was  required  to  be  done  by  a  public  official,  who 
received  fees  for  his  services.  This  brings  up  another  subject 
which  was  of  fundamental  importance  to  the  early  common- 
wealths, that  is,  the  regulation  of  weights  and  measures.  The 
Federal  Constitution*  provides  that  Congress  shall  have  power 

1  Account  of  tobacco  inspection.    Bruce,  Econ.  Hist.  Va.,  I,  304. 
2 Shingles  were  used  to  pay  fines .     Ibid.,  II,  158. 

3  Ashes  was  the  most  important  form  in  which  the  American  forests 
were  utilized  for  export.  Laws,  Mass.,  1807,  II,  901-928.  Laws,  New 
Jersey,  1821,  R.  S.,  p.  1043.    Laws,  N.  H.,  1785,  p.  389. 

4  Federal  Constitution,  Art.  I,  Sec.  7. 


128  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

to  fix  the  standards  of  weights  and  measures ;  but  Congress  has 
never  done  so.  The  individual  states  therefore  adopted  and  en- 
forced their  own  standards.  Some  of  them  made  the  sealer  of 
weights  and  measures  a  state  officer,  while  others  attached  the 
duties  and  emoluments  of  the  office  to  some  other  state  office. 
Besides  the  state  sealer,  there  were  subordinate  county  sealers, 
all  of  them  paid  by  fees  collected  from  those  who  had  their 
scales  and  measures  tested.  To  provide  further  against  the  use 
of  fraudulent  scales,  it  was  enacted  that  dealers  should  have 
their  instruments  of  measurement  sealed  at  stated  intervals; 
which  resulted  in  considerable  pecuniary  gain  to  this  office. 

It  is  noticeable  that  a  large  number  of  these  and  similar  fees 
were  paid  for  services  performed  by  the  government  to  protect 
the  public,  and  more  especially  the  consumers,  against  fraud  on 
the  part  of  the  seller.  These  regulations,  which  to  us  seem  al- 
most superfluous,  were  at  that  time  very  necessary,  because  of 
the  imperfection  of  competition.  The  buyer  was  as  a  rule  al- 
most helpless  against  the  frauds  of  the  seller.  No  way  was 
open  to  him  to  detect  or  avoid  imperfection  in  the  scales  or 
measures,  unless  the  government  gave  him  the  means.  Adultera- 
tions and  goods  of  inferior  grades  might  be  imposed  upon  him 
with  impunity,  unless  there  was  an  inspection  law  to  which  he 
might  appeal.  Oppression,  fraud,  discrimination  against  the 
weak,  were  the  evils  which  were  feared,  and  which  many  of 
these  laws  attempted  to  guard  against.  The  fees  were  payments 
for  real  services  to  the  seller  as  well  as  the  buyer.  The  seal  of 
a  public  inspector  added  pecuniary  value  to  the  goods,  while  to 
the  buyer  it  was  a  valuable  safe-guard  against  fraud  and  adul- 
terations. 

T.       REGULATION    BY    MEANS    OF    LICENSES. 

Some  states  found  it  necessary  to  regulate  the  legal  profes- 
sion, and  at  a  very  early  date  prescribed  examinations  and  the 
payment  of  license  fees  before  admission  to  the  bar  was  granted.1 
Laws  against  over-charges   by   attorneys   were  not   uncommon, 

1  Laws  Mass.,  1803,  II,  735.  Admission  to  court  of  Common  Pleas, 
$20;  admission  to  practice  in  Supreme  Court,  $30;  degree  of  Barrister  at 
Law,  $40. 


The  Early  Period  in  the  United  States.  129 

while  one  state  required  every  attorney  to  pledge  himself  before 
the  license  could  be  issued,  not  to  charge  illegal  or  extortionate 
fees.  Physicians 1  became  amenable  to  law,  in  that  some  states 
required  license  fees,  and  prescribed  examinations  for  all  who 
desired  to  practice  medicine. 

In  short,  license  fees  and  regulation  by  means  of  license,  be- 
came extremely  common  in  the  early  part  of  the  century.2 
Auctioneers,3  pawnbrokers,  retailers  of  various  kinds,*  victual- 
lers, innkeepers,  and  others  were  placed  under  supervision,  but 
perhaps  most  important  of  all  were  the  liquor  licenses.5  These 
were  employed  in  all  the  states  to  regulate  the  establishments 
in  which  liquor  was  sold.  The  charges  vary  from  a  merely 
nominal  fee  to  a  considerable  sum.  Some  commonwealths  even 
had  a  classified  system  of  licenses;  among  others  may  be  men- 
tioned the  beer  license,  wholesale  liquor  dealers'  license,  retail 
liquor  license,  for  each  of  which  a  distinct  fee  was  charged.  In 
the  earljT  history  of  the  country  it  was  customary  for  the 
country  grocer  to  sell  liquor  as  well  as  provisions,  which  led  to 
the  establishment  of  the  license  regulations  for  groceries  in 
general. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  liquor  legislation  and  the 
license  system  is  a  distinctively  American  development;  al- 
though England  has  had  almost  the  same  experience,  which  has 
resulted  in  similar  regulations,  still  our  system   is  not  taken 

1  In  New  Jersey,  physicians  for  vaccination  hospitals  were  required  to 
furnish  bond  for  1,000£  before  they  could  obtain  license.  Act,  1789,  Feb. 
3,  p.  302.  The  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  was  given  power  to  exam- 
ine and  license  candidates,  and  to  fix  fees  therefor.  Laws,  1796, 
par.  6,  42. 

2  Broker's  license  fee  of  $5,  originated  by  an  early  Governor  of  Maryland. 
Laivs,  1818,  Ch.  10,  §1.  Ibid. ,  Lottery  ticket  broker's  fee,  $500.  Hawkers' 
and  peddlers'  license  fee,  $40.    1819,  Ch.  184,  §6. 

3  South  Carolina  license  fee,  from  $25  to  $175.     Statutes,  XV,  797. 

4  Pennsylvania  venders  of  domestic  merchandise,  $20.  Laws,  Penn., 
1830,  p.  387. 

6  In  Baltimore,  liquor  in  quantities  of  10  gal.,  fee  $12;  retailing  generally, 
fee  $16.  Laws,  Md.,  1827,  Ch.  117,  par.  2.  New  Hampshire  beer-bottler's 
license,  for  first  class  fee,  $75;  second,  $50.  Laws,  N.  H.,  1814, 
par.  148. 


130  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

from  England.  Each  of  the  original  states,  almost  without 
exception,  passed  through  all  the  stages  in  the  evolution,  which 
as  has  already  been  shown,  may  be  roughly  outlined  as  follows : 
The  bad  effects  of  the  unrestrained  sale  of  liquor  soon  became 
manifest;  to  remedy  this,  power  was  given  to  some  public 
officials  to  restrict  the  number  of  places  where  liquor  might  be 
sold.  From  this  it  is  but  a  step  to  a  written  license.  Soon  a 
small  fee  is  charged  for  the  use  of  the  licensing  body.  Little 
by  litle  this  fee  is  increased  until  it  becomes  the  license  charge 
as  we  know  it  today.  Before  1830  the  liquor  licenses  were  all 
of  them  moderate,  rarely  exceeding  $50  ia  amount,  and  usually 
much  less. 

G.       ROAD    TOLLS,    ETC. 

After  the  colonies  had  recovered  from  the  immediate  effects 
of  the  revolutionary  war,  a  period  of  intense  industrial  activity 
and  prosperity  set  in,  as  is  manifested  by  the  enormous  increase 
in  the  number  of  internal  improvements  and  other  improve- 
ments and  other  enterprises.  Pennsylvania  was  the  leader  in 
road  and  bridge  building.  In  this  state  168  turnpike  companies 
and  61  bridge  companies  were  incorporated1  between  1792  and 
1828.  The  other  states  were  progressing  along  the  same  lines. 
Almost  every  legislature  passed  some  special  act  incorporating 
bridge  and  road  companies,  or  granting  ferry  privileges.  Many 
of  these  undertakings  were  so  large,  that  state  aid  was  neces- 
sary if  they  should  be  successfully  completed.  Pennsylvania 
alone  subscribed  over  two  million  dollars  to  turnpike,  bridge, 
and  canal  companies  in  less  than  twenty  years.2 

Most  of  these  improvements  were  not  built  by  local  political 
bodies,  for  the  free  use  of  the  people,  but  were  speculative  in- 
vestments for  profit.  The  investors  expected,  in  almost  every  case, 
to  recompense  themselves,  not  only  for  the  interest  on  the  invest- 
ment, but  also  for  the  capital  itself,  out  of  the  tolls  to  be  col- 
lected for  the  use  of  the  improvement.     Some  of   the   charters  3 

1  Worthington,  Finances  of  Pennsylvania,  Amer.  Econ.  Assn.  Publ., 
p.  20. 

2 Ibid.,  21. 

3 1797,  20th  session,  p.  454.  License  granted  to  Anthony  Dobbins  to  run 
a  stage  from  Goshen  to  New  York. 


The  Early  Period  in  the  United  States.  131 

fixed  a  scale  of  maximum  fees  or  tolls  x  which  might  be  collected, 
and  in  a  few  cases  provided  for  a  revision  and  reduction  of  the 
same,  after  a  certain  number  of  years  had  elapsed.  But  the  law 
fixing  the  fees  for  each  ferry,  bridge,  or  toll-road,  was  not  lived 
up  to  in  all  cases,  or  was  easily  evaded,  on  account  of  the  loose 
wording  of  the  special  acts.  The  result  was  the  continuation  of 
petty  discriminations  and  annoyances  of  various  kinds,  due  to 
favoritism  or  antagonism  of  the  toll  collecting  body  to  different 
individuals.  It  was  but  natural  that  protests  against  these  over- 
charges and  frauds  should  begin  to  pour  in  upon  the  various 
state  legislatures ;  for  protests  of  this  kind  were  not  uncommon, 
even  in  the  colonial  period.  In  consequence,  the  legislatures  usu- 
ally attempted  to  regulate  the  ferry  and  bridge  companies,  by  fix- 
ing more  detailed  and  elaborate  schedules  of  rates  and  prescribing 
penalties  for  their  violation.2  But  apparently  the  abuses  con- 
tinued; for  the  laws  of  the  period  after  the  revolution  fairly 
bristle  with  special  enactments  regulating  this,  that,  or  the 
other  toll  collecting  company. 

The  problem  which  those  early  legislatures  had  to  solve,  was 
exactly  the  same  as  the  railroad  problem  of  today,  only  on  a 
smaller  scale.  The  abuses  of  that  day,  as  shown  by  the  com- 
plaints, were  in  miniature  the  very  same  as  the  complaints 
against  the  railway  companies  at  present.  If  history  repeats 
itself,  the  final  solution  of  this  early  problem  may  point  to  a 
similar  treatment  of  the  problem  of  today. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  early  commonwealths  tried  regula- 
tion of  various  kinds.3  At  first  the  right  to  establish  ferry  or 
post  roads  was,  as  a  rule,  granted  by  the  legislature  for  nothing; 
soon,  however,  this  power  of  issuing  ferry  licenses  began  to  be 
transferred  to  local  authorities,  the  legislatures  prescribing  the 
method  and  manner  in  which  the  grant  should  be  made.  Us- 
ually a  bond  for  a  certain  amount  was  required  for  the  enforce- 

1  Act,  Mass.,  passed  in  1817,  Rev.  Stat,  1836,  p.  338. 

2  These  tolls  collected  by  private  companies  were  not  fees.  Their  signifi- 
cance lies  in  the  fact  that  they  became  fees  when  the  state  or  municipality 
took  the  roads  out  of  private  hands.  Sometimes,  also,  they  became  license 
fees,  because  the  abuses  practiced  by  the  toll  collecting  companies  led  up 
to  regulative  legislation  of  this  kind. 

3  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  1791. 


132  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

ment  of  the  law  regulating  ferries.  Thus  we  find  in  New  York 
laws,  passed  at  the  eighth  session,  a  regulation  to  the  effect 
that  "  each  ferry  license  should  be  granted  for  an  annual  rental, " 
which  was  in  its  essence  a  license  fee.  The  law  prescribed 
what  tolls  should  be  collected  besides  numerous  police  regula- 
tions. Soon  the  power  to  make  all  these  regulations  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  local  authorities.  Then  comes  the  inauguration 
of  the  great  movement  which  has  resulted  in  public  ownership 
of  highways  and  bridges,  but  which  is  not  yet  completed  as 
regards  ferries.  The  change  from  private  ferries  to  free  public 
bridges  has  however  been  carried  out  wherever  the  cost  has  not 
been  too  great. 

H.       TONNAGE  DUTIES  IN  THE  NATURE  OF  FEES. 

It  is  the  state  tonnage  duties  of  this  period  J  that  reveal  most 
clearly  the  dependence  of  the  early  commonwealth  on  colonial 
institutions.  These  were  duties,  levied  with  the  consent  of 
Congress,  on  vessels  entering  certain  harbors  or  water-courses, 
and  were,  originally  at  least,  intended  as  payments  for  the  use 
of  improvements  made  or  to  be  made  in  such  rivers  or  harbors. 
They  were,  perhaps,  only  partially  in  the  nature  of  fees,  because 
they  were  at  times  levied  to  pay  for  improvements  which  were 
about  to  be  made.  The  service  would  only  be  actual,  in  case 
the  vessel  returned  to  the  harbor,  and  in  that  way  received 
benefit  from  the  improvements.  The  significance  of  these  duties 
lies  in  the  fact  that  they  illustrate  how  the  states  had  been  ac- 
customed, while  they  were  colonies,  to  pay  for  their  harbor  im- 
provements in  this  way.  So  very  naturally  they  resorted  to 
the  same  methods  after  the  Union  had  been  formed,  although 
the  federal  constitution  expressly  prohibited  it.2  These  charges 
all  disappeared,  as  soon  as  the  federal  customs  and  tonnage 
duties  became  firmly  established. 

JR.  I.,  1790,  to  deepen  channel  at  Providence;  Mass.,  1798,  to  improve 
the  Kennebeck  River;  Pa.,  1805,  to  improve  the  Delaware  River;  Va.,  1804, 
1826,  to  improve  the  James  River;  N.  C,  1824,  to  improve  Appatomax 
River;  Ga.,  1787,  to  improve  Savannah  River;  Md.,  1783,  to  improve  Balti- 
more Harbor;  Md.,  1793,  to  improve  harbor  and  pay  health  officer  of  har- 
bor. 

2  The  constitutionality  of  these  duties  was  not  questioned  because  the 
consent  of  congress  was  obtained  in  each  case. 


The  Middle  Period  in  the  United  States.  133 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD.    1830  TO  1865. 

A.       GENERAL    CONSIDERATIONS 

Beginning  with  the  administration  of  President  Jackson  the 
United  States  entered  upon  a  period  in  many  respects  the  most 
remarkable  in  the  history  of  the  country.  In  a  certain  sense  it 
may  be  called  the  beginning  of  the  industrial  development,  or 
the  industrial  revolution,  of  the  New  World.  Mighty  strides 
were  made  in  all  branches  of  learning  and  especially  in  the  in- 
dustrial arts.  The  most  wonderful  inventions l  were  applied, 
and  machine  production  on  a  large  scale  began.  Towns  in- 
creased enormously  in  size 2  and  importance  so  that  city  ques- 
tions were  forced  to  the  front.  Gradually  one  power  after  an- 
other was  turned  over  to  municipalities,  until  they  held  in  many 
respects  almost  the  same  position  as  fee-collecting  institutions, 
that  the  states  held  in  the  earlier  epoch.  The  legislature,  to  be 
sure,  fixed  the  maximum  and  minimum  amount  which  might  be 
charged ;  but  the  towns  had  the  power  to  fix  the  charge,  within 
those  limits,  and  to  grant  licenses  or  to  refuse  them.  These 
municipal  privileges  were  granted  much  earlier  in  a  few  isolated 
instances,3  but  the  movement  did  not  become  general. 

B.       LICENSE    REGULATIONS    AND    FEES. 

As  a  result  of  the  rapid  growth  of  the  cities  the  liquor  ques- 
tion came   into  prominence,  and  high  licenses  were  introduced 

1  Telegraph,  1837;  cheap  postage  proposed  by  Hill;  steam  propulsion, 
etc.,  etc. 

2  The  percentage  of  total  population  living  in  cities  increased  from  6.7 
per  cent,  in  1830  to  20.9  per  cent  in  1870.     U  S.  Census. 

3  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  Hudson  granted  power  to  license  taverns.  Fee 
not  to  exceed  16s  per  year.  Statutes,  N.  Y.,  13th  sess.,  p.  195-196.  Annapo- 
lis, Md.,  given  power  to  regulate  ordinaries  and  retailers  of  liquor.  Laws, 
1784,  Ch.  49.  City  of  Washington  given  the  same  power,  also  the  power  to 
license  and  regulate  wharfs.  Laws,  Md.,  1784,  Ch.  45,  §  12.  Georgetown 
granted  similar  powers.     Ibid.,  1799,  Ch.  85,  §  2. 


134  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

not  only  to  regulate  the  sale  of  liquor,1  but  also  for  permission 
to  carry  on  various  other  occupations.  Maryland  required 
licenses  to  be  taken  by  keepers  of  cook-shops  or  taverns,  peddlers, 
and  others.  The  fees  were  collected  partly  for  regulation  but 
largely  for  revenue.  An  attempt  to  vary  the  size  of  the  fee  ac- 
cording to  the  amount  of  stock  ■  was  inaugurated  as  early  as 
1828.  This  same  idea  was  applied  roughly  to  the  charges  for 
peddlers'  licenses  in  New  Jersey,  in  that  a  peddler  on  foot  was 
required  to  pay  only  eight  dollars,  while  one  with  a  horse  was 
charged  fifteen  dollars.3  Pennsylvania  was  almost  the  first  to 
extend  her  license  system  so  as  to  include  a  very  large  number 
of  industries.  Brokers  of  all  kinds,  venders  of  foreign  and  do- 
mestic merchandise,  sample  agents,  and  many  others  were 
brought  under  its  requirements.*  Pursuits  in  which  fraud  was 
most  likely  to  be  practiced,  were  charged  a  higher  license  fee 
than  others.  But  there  is  no  uniformity  in  the  different  states 
in  this  respect.  Each  law  was  passed  usually  under  pressure  of 
circumstances.5  The  conditions  of  one  state  brought  the  abuses 
of  one  pursuit  to  light,  while  another  at  the  same  time  felt  the 
need  of  regulating  a  different  occupation. 

Shows,  theaters,  and  circuses  had  become  of  far  greater  im- 
portance than  at  any  previous  period.  This  is  manifested  by 
the  number  of  acts  which  regulate  and  license  these  amuse- 
ments,6 also  by  the  fact  that  the  license  fee  is  slowly  increasing 

1  Liquor  license  in  Maryland  from  twelve  to  fifty  dollars.  Laws,  1832, 
Ch.  26. 

2  Laws,  Ind.,  1828,  Ch.  85. 
3 Statutes,  N.  J.,  1846. 

4  Law,  Venn.,  1830,  p.  387.  Much  of  this  later  license  legislation  was 
unquestionably  directed  toward  raising  revenue,  and  was  in  essence  taxa- 
tion; but  its  importance  in  this  connection  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  originated 
as  pure  license  fees.  During  the  period  under  consideration,  many  of  the 
license  charges  possessed  all  the  characteristics  of  pure  fees.  The  license 
and  business  taxes  which  became  very  common  in  the  South,  were  radi- 
cally different,  although  they  too  originated,  indirectly  at  least,  in  license 
fees. 

6  In  some  states  clock-peddlers  were  charged  no  license  fee,  while  in  Penn- 
sylvania thirty  dollars  was  charged  for  each.     Ibid.,  p.  39. 

6  Statutes,  N.  H.,  1850,  Ch.  971;  Md.,  1841,  Ch.  194;  Penn.,  1850,  p.  147. 


The  Middle  Period  in  the  United  States.  135 

in  amount.1  The  importance  of  the  large  cities  is  here  again 
recognized  by  the  fact,  that  a  higher  fee  was  collected  for  these 
licenses  in  the  great  towns  than  in  small  ones. 

C.       THE    DEVELOPMENT    IN    INSPECTION    FEES. 

The  system  of  inspection  continued  to  be  elaborated  and  en- 
larged in  such  a  way  that  new  articles  were  continually  added 
to  the  list  coming  under  this  requirement.  Furthermore,  new 
and  more  complex  schedules  were  made  of  the  old  inspection 
fees.  Many  of  these  early  laws  were  designed  to  protect  the 
consumer,  and  forbade  the  sale  of  uninspected  articles.  This 
provision  was  soon  found  to  be  too  onerous  to  some  producers, 
and  as  a  result  inspection  laws  were  made  applicable  largely 
only  to  articles  intended  for  export.2  Sometimes,  however,  a 
few  products,  which  were  deemed  especially  liable  to  adultera- 
tion or  deception  as  to  quality,  were  in  some  states  kept  under 
compulsory  inspection;  as,  for  example,  in  Pennsylvania,  flour 
intended  for  sale,3  in  South  Carolina,  turpentine. 

To  understand  fully  the  significance  of  these  state  export  in- 
spection laws,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  export 
trade  had  not  become  centralized  in  a  few  great  ports  as  it  was 
later  on.  Cheap  transportation  other  than  by  water  was  not 
even  dreamed  of.  Every  state  which  had  any  seaboard  at  all, 
carried  on  its  own  export  trade,  instead  of  sending  its  products 
to  New  York  or  other  great  ports,  as  is  customary  at  present. 
Each  little  harbor  drained,  as  it  were,  the  products  of  the  ter- 
ritory surrounding  it.  It  was  not  American  pork  and  Ameri- 
can wheat  that  was  quoted  in  European  markets,  but  it  was 
New  York  flour,  Virginia  tobacco,  Carolina  pitch,  and  so  on; 
each  state  became  in  a  sense  responsible  for  the  quality  of  its 
own  goods.  It  is  then  not  difficult  to  understand  why  each 
state  laid  so  much  stress  on  the  inspection  of  its  own  products 

1  Laws,  Penn.,  1845,  p.  532. 

2  Compulsory  inspection,  except  of  exports,  was  abolished  in  New  York 
in  1845.  Laws,  Ch.  202,  Par.  1.  In  North  Carolina  provisions,  cotton, 
turpentine,  tobacco,  lumber,  and  the  like,  were  required  to  be  inspected 
before  exportation.    Laws,  3856,  Ch.  27. 

8  All  timber  sold  must  be  inspected.     Laws,  S.  C,  1856,  XII,  580. 


136  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

intended  for  export.  The  exporter  was  not  only  required  to 
pay  a  fixed  fee  for  each  quantity  of  goods  inspected,  but  in  some 
cases  was  compelled  to  buy  a  certificate  stating  that  the  entire 
cargo  had  been  inspected,  before  the  vessel  could  obtain  its 
clearance  papers.1 

Facilities  for  ascertaining  the  weight  and  measure  of  articles 
bought  or  sold,  were  not  as  yet  in  the  possession  of  the  masses. 
The  increasing  amount  of  buying  and  selling  which  was  done 
by  means  of  comparatively  few  scales  and  instruments  of  meas- 
urement, presented  a  fine  opportunity  for  large  profits  by  means 
of  fraudulent  instruments.  A  sealer  of  weights  and  measures  to 
test  regularly  the  accuracy  of  all  scales,  was  therefore  an  eco- 
nomic necessity.  The  services  of  this  official  were  directly  in  the 
interest  of  the  owner  of  the  scales,  because  his  instrument  re- 
ceived the  official  sanction  and  approval.  It  was  therefore  not 
unjust  to  require  him  to  pay  the  inspection  fee.  With  the 
growth  in  population  the  number  of  scales  multiplied  very  rap- 
idly. As  a  result  the  number  of  sealers  required  was  very  much 
greater,  and  the  amount  of  fees  paid  to  these  became  of  more 
importance. 

D.       NEW    INSPECTION    FEES. 

The  industrial  progress  of  the  community  shows  itself  most 
directly  in  the  canal  and  railroad  building,  and  the  employment 
of  steam  in  navigation.  As  a  result  of  the  imperfections  of  the 
earlier  built  engines,  their  use  was  not  so  safe  as  it  ha3  since 
become.  Railway,  steamboat,  and  other  accidents  were  very  nu- 
merous, due  to  boiler  explosions  or  fires  caused  by  the  applica- 
tion of  steam  as  a  means  of  propulsion.  Lives  were  lost  in 
large  numbers;  steamboats  went  down  with  all  on  board;  rail- 
road holocausts  were  frequent;  all  of  which  resulted  in  pressure 
for  legislation  to  protect  the  lives  of  the  public  against  the  sup- 
posed carelessness  and  greed  of  transportation  companies.  The 
states2  therefore  stepped  in  and  passed  acts  making  railroads 
responsible  for  injuries  received  in  railroad  accidents. 


1  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  New  York,  and  of  other  states. 

2  Massachusetts  took  the  lead,  followed  by  the  other  NewEngland  states 
and    by  New  York   and   Pennsylvania    before    1850;    while  the  North 


The  Middle  Period  in  the  United  States.  137 

But  the  states  could  not  regulate  steamboats  engaged  in  inter- 
state or  foreign  commerce,  because  this  power  was  given  to 
Congress  by  the  Constitution.  A  bill  was  therefore  introduced 
in  this  body,  and  passed  in  1850,  providing  for  United  States 
steamboat  inspectors,  whose  duties  should  be  to  test  all  boilers, 
inspect  the  boats,  and  see  that  the  required  number  of  life-boats, 
life-preservers,  and  the  like  were  carried.  As  a  compensation 
they  were  allowed  to  collect  fees  from  the  boat  owners  for  each 
inspection. 

E.   LATER  FEES  AS  COMPARED  WITH  EARLIER  FEE  SCHEDULES. 

A  comparison  of  the  tables  of  fees  of  the  middle  period  with 
those  in  force  in  the  colonies,  shows  not  so  much  a  reduction  in 
the  size  of  the  various  fees  as  an  attempt  to  put  all  charges  in 
round  numbers,  in  other  words,  to  charge  such  amounts  as 
would  seem  most  convenient  and  customary  for  the  public  to 
pay.  A  comparative  study  of  the  early  schedules  of  fees  seems 
to  show  that  there  was  an  attempt  to  compute  accurately,  in 
dollars  and  cents,  the  cost  of  the  various  services  performed  by 
public  officials;  while  the  later  fee-bills  appear  to  be  attempts 
to  approximate  roughly  the  cost  of  the  service,  rather  than  to 
really  measure  it.  If  we  glance  at  the  numbers  in  an  early  fee- 
law,  they  run  as  follows:1  5,  17,  25,  34,  13,  19,  42,  67,  50,  85, 
etc.,  while  a  later  statute  of  the  same  kind  would  show  the 
following  figures:  40,  25,  50  cents,  $1,  .50,  .20,  etc. 

This  would  seem  to  indicate  a  regular  increase  in  the  amount 
of  the  fees,  but  a  general  statement  that  such  is  the  case  can- 
not be  made.  There  may  be  a  very  decided  increase  in  one 
state  or  in  one  part  of  a  state,  while  in  another  there  may  be  a 
decided  decrease.  A  further  explanation  of  some  of  the  odd 
numbers  in  the  earlier  schedules  is  the  fact,  that  the  colonial 
fees  were  expressed  in  pounds  and  pence  and,  in  the  earlier 
laws,  these  were  simply  translated  into  their  American  money 
equivalents. 

western  states  all  passed  similar  laws  between  1850  and  1860.    Rhodes, 
History  of  the  United  States,  II,  18. 
1  Statutes,  Conn.,  1796. 


138  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

F.   NEW  STANDARDS  OF  MEASUREMENT. 

In  course  of  time  new  standards  of  measurement  are  intro- 
duced. Recorders'  fees  were,  as  a  rule,  so  much  per  folio. 
"Folio,"  however,  is  an  ambiguous  term,  of  which  the  recorders 
were  not  slow  to  avail  themselves;  and,  as  a  result  the  states 
one  by  one  passed  acts  defining  its  meaning.1  Peddlers'  license 
fees  soon  become  graded  according  to  the  amount  of  goods  which 
were  carried,  and  also  according  to  the  nature  of  the  goods 
sold.2  Liquor  licenses  are  made  to  vary  in  some  states  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  kinds  of  liquor  sold  on  the  premises;  in 
others  according  to  the  quantity  sold  at  the  time;  and  in  still 
others  according  to  the  value  of  the  stock,3  or  the  rental  value 
of  the  premises,  and  so  on.  In  billiard  table  licenses  there  is 
usually  a  smaller  charge  for  the  second  table  on  the  same  prem- 
ises than  for  the  first.  In  a  few  states  the  charge  for  inspec- 
tion is  slightly  lower  if  there  is  a  large  quantity  of  goods  in- 
spected at  one  time,  than  for  small  quantities. 

G.       INCORPORATION  FEES. 

Another  set  of  fees,  which  may  be  said  to  be  a  direct  result 
of  economic  conditions  of  the  middle  period,  are  the  payments 
which  have  been  designated  by  the  general  term,  "  incorpora- 
tion fees. "  These  are,  in  a  certain  sense,  one  of  the  few  sur- 
vivals of  the  ancient  Regalia,  or  lucrative  prerogatives,  which 
belonged  to  the  sovereign.  The  right  of  incorporation  was  at 
first  simply  one  of  a  large  number  of  franchises4  granted  by  the 
King.  In  common  law  the  words  "franchise"  and  "liberty" 
are  synonymous.  Blackstone  defines  a  franchise  as  a  "royal 
privilege,  or  branch  of  the  king's  privilege,  subsisting  in  the 
hands  of  a  subject.  "5     It  may  be  "vested"  he  says    "in  natural 

1  Some  states  fix  100  words  to  the  folio;  others  80,  and  so  on. 

2  First  there  is  one  charge  for  all  peddlers'  licenses;  then  there  is  a 
higher  charge  for  a  license  to  peddle  with  a  horse;  then  the  charge  is 
further  increased  for  license  to  peddle  with  two  horses,  and  so  on. 

3  Pennsylvania  adopted  the  system  as  early  as  1840. 

4  Blackstone  mentions  as  franchises  the  right  to  have  a  manor,  to  hold 
court-leet,  to  have  lordship,  to  hold  estrays,  to  use  royal  fish,  and  so  on. 

5  Blackstone,  II,  37. 


The  Middle  Period  in  the  United  States.  139 

persons  or  bodies  politic."  The  most  common  of  all  franchises 
came  to  be  the  grant  of  corporate  existence,  with  which  were 
coupled  other  rights,  such  as  the  right  to  take  tolls  on  high- 
ways, and  similar  privileges.  In  the  United  States  most  of  the 
other  franchises  dropped  out  of  sight,  and  to  the  popular  mind 
the  word  usually  means  a  privilege  to  use  highways,  or  streets 
for  some  purpose  or  other.  It  is  thus  clear,  that  it  is  a  last 
remnant  of  a  large  number  of  grants  which  were  formerly  made 
by  sovereignty.  The  first  American  franchises  were  granted 
to  turnpike,  bridge,  and  ferry  companies,  usually  by  special 
charters.  No  charges  or  fees  were  collected  for  the  earlier  ones, 
and  even  after  the  applications  for  charters  became  numerous, 
charges  or  payments  of  any  kind  were  rare. 

But  with  the  increasing  value  and  earning  capacity  of  these 
corporations,  whose  activities  the  charters  made  possible,  the 
tendency  becomes  general  to  impose  charges,  which  are  virtually 
payments  for  the  right  to  exercise  those  privileges.  A  careful 
study  of  conditions  will  show  that  the  special  benefit  conferred 
on  individuals  through  these  various  charters,  were  at  first  so 
small  that  the  grant  might  well  be  made  for  nothing;1  especially 
since  the  public  was  oftentimes  largely  benefited  by  the  enter- 
prises which  were  thus  put  into  operation.  Later  on,  however, 
the  special  benefits  conferred  by  the  charters  were  very  valua- 
ble, and  a  moderate  payment  was  simply  a  slight  remuneration 
for  the  privilege  given. 

There  are  a  few  general  causes  which  may  be  said  to  have 
led  up  to,  and  brought  about  the  general  incorporation  laws  of 
this  period  as  contrasted  with  the  early  special  laws.  In  the 
first  place,  the  grant  of  charters  and  other  corporation  privi- 
leges degenerated  into  acts  and  laws  which  were  passed  by 
means  of  political  chicanery  and  intrigues.  Indeed,  to  such  an 
extent  was  this  carried  that  politicians  made  it  a  business  to 
obtain  charters  of  such  a  general  character,  that  they  could  be 

1  The  early  charters  for  water  companies  in  the  state  of  Connecticut, 
known  as  acqueduct  companies,  were  in  reality  for  co-operative  corpora- 
tions of  farmers  secured  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  themselves  with 
water.  No  fees  were  paid  for  these  charters.  These  are  in  one  sense  the 
precursors  of  the  modern  water-supply  companies. 


140  Urdahl— Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

used  equally  well  for  any  kind  of  a  corporation.1  When  ob- 
tained, these  franchises  would  be  sold  to  anyone  wishing  to  buy. 
In  this  way  a  bill  might  be  passed  without  debate  or  delibera- 
tion which  would  be  instrumental  in  creating  corporations  with 
powers  and  privileges  dangerous  to  the  general  public. 

In  the  second  place,  it  was  a  period  of  intense  industrial 
activity.  Corporations  were  needed  everywhere  to  carry  on  the 
railroad  and  canal-building,  shipping  and  other  industrial  en 
terprises.  Finally,  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Dartmouth  College  case,  holding  that  the  privileges  granted 
away  by  means  of  these  special  charters  could  not  be  altered  or 
resumed  by  subsequent  legislation,  led  up  to  constitutional 
amendments  reserving  power  to  the  state  to  alter  and  amend 
all  charters.  All  these  things  may  be  said  to  have  been  the 
causes  that  brought  about  general  incorporation  laws  prescrib- 
ing the  method  of  procedure  which  a  body  of  persons  must  follow 
in  order  to  become  incorporated.  Comparatively  few  states, 
however,  had  reached  this  stage  before  the  war.2 

The  significant  part  of  most  of  these  general  incorporation 
laws  is  the  fact,  that  a  regular  incorporation  fee  is  charged, 
small  in  amount  at  first,  but  gradually  increasing  until  it  be- 
comes the  fee  which  is  at  present  known  as  franchise  taxes, 
charter  fees,  incorporation  charges,  and  by  many  other  desig- 
nations. A  little  thought  will  convince  anyone  that  the  char- 
ters were  not  obtained  for  nothing,  even  when  they  were 
granted  by  special  acts.  Very  often  more  than  the  amount  at 
present  paid  as  fees,  had  to  be  expended  in  one  way  or  another 
to  secure  the  passage  of  the  special  act.  In  one  sense  it  may 
therefore  be  said  that  the  general  law  took  the  fees  out  of  the 
politician's  pocket,  and  turned  them  into  those  of  some  public 
officer  and  sometimes  into  the  public  treasury. 

1  The  notorious  Credit  Mobilier  owed  its  existence  to  a  charter  obtained 
in  this  way. 

2  Connecticut  passed  a  general  incorporation  law  in  1845.  A  New  Jersey 
incorporation  law  dates  back  to  1811. 


The  Federal  System.  141 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  FEDERAL  FEE-SYSTEM. 
A.       PATENT   AND    COPYRIGHT    FEES. 

To  the  public  generally  the  best  known  system  of  fees  col- 
lected under  the  federal  laws,  is  undoubtedly  that  connected 
with  the  National  Patent  Office.  This  office  is  one  of  the  insti- 
tutions which  were  conceived  and  established  by  Jefferson  in 
1790.  Before  that  date  some  of  the  states  had  by  legislative 
acts  granted  patents  and  copyrights  for  short  periods  of  years, 
but  none  of  them  had  any  complete  system.1  True  to  the  ideas 
then  current,  that  fees  should  pay  salaries  directly,  and  should 
only  be  sufficient  to  make  the  public  institutions  self-support- 
ing, Jefferson  made  the  patent  office  fees  very  low,  and  al- 
lowed all  of  them  to  be  collected  as  salaries  by  the  patent  office 
officials.2  But  the  receipts  were  found  to  be  inadequate  to  pay 
expenses ;  so  in  1793  a  law  was  passed  which  increased  the  fees 
to  six  times  the  former  amount.  This  continued  in  force  up  to 
1836,  when  a  new  act  was  passed  which  provided  that  patent 
officials  should  be  paid  salaries,  and  that  all  the  fees  collected 
should  be  paid  into  the  treasury.  The  Patent  Office  fees  re- 
mained about  the  same  for  United  States  citizens,  but  foreign 
applicants  were  compelled  to  pay  much  larger  sums  for  patent 
rights.3  Provision  was  also  made  for  the  right  to  extend  the 
the  life  of  a  patent,  and   a   fee  of   forty  dollars  was  to  be  col- 

1  Statutes,  N.  Y.,  p.  274;  Copyright  act,  1777.  Massachusetts  patents, 
1639;  Colonial  Laws,  p.  182. 

Governor  and  council  have  power  to  encourage  inventions  in  Pennsyl- 
vania.   Laws,  Duke  of  York,  p.  251;  charter  of  Province  of  Philadelphia. 

2  Jefferson's  schedule  was  as  follows:  Filing  petition,  50  cents;  filing 
specification,  50  cents;  making  out  patent,  $2;  affixing  seal,  $1;  endorsing 
and  delivering,  50  cents. 

3  Statutes  at  Large,  U.  S.,  V,  513.  Citizens  of  Great  Britain,  applica- 
tion fee,  $500;  any  other  country,  $300;  citizen  U.  S.,  $30;  caveat,  $20;  ex- 
tension of  patent,  $40;  appeal  from  examiner's  decision,  $25. 


142  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

lected  for  each  extension.  This  schedule  remained  in  force  up 
to  1861.  Congress  then  passed  an  act  which  reduced  most  of  the 
old  fees  by  one-half,  but  enlarged  the  fee  bill  so  as  to  require 
payments  for  official  acts  which  up  to  that  time  had  been  free.1 
The  discriminations  against  foreigners  were  also  repealed. 

With  slight  changes  this  schedule  has  remained  in  force  up 
to  the  present.  New  duties  are  gradually  taken  over  by  the 
patent  office,  because  the  sphere  of  invention  becomes  broader 
with  every  new  discovery  in  science,  and  the  technicalities  of 
patents  and  patent  rights  become  more  complicated.  New  fees 
are  therefore  constantly  being  introduced  to  pay  for  the  more 
elaborate  and  thorough  examination  which  must  be  taken  in  the 
interests  of  the  patentees. 

■She  copyright  law  has  been  subject  to  less  change  than  the 
patent  law,  and  the  fees  have  remained  uniform  almost  from  the 
beginning.  The  first  act,  passed  in  1790,  fixed  the  copyright 
fee  at  fifty  cents,  and  provided  for  a  re-issue  on  payment  of  an- 
other fee  of  the  same  amount.  These  charges  continued  un- 
changed in  all  the  subsequent  acts,  except  that  a  recent  law  has 
taken  all  the  fees  out  of  the  Librarian's  salary2  and  required 
their  payment  into  the  treasury.3 

B.       CUSTOM  HOUSE  AND  OTHER  IMPORT  PEES. 

The  very  first  law  levying  import  and  tonnage  duties  made 
provision  for  the  payment  of  all  officers  connected  with  the  cus- 
tom house  by  means  of  fees.  Surveyors,  weighers,  gaugers,  in- 
spectors, and  collectors,  each  had  their  own  fees  defined  by  this 
early  act  of  1787.     Clearance  and  entrance   fees   for  ships  were 

1  Ibid.,  XII,  246,  each  caveat,  $10;  each  original  application,  $15;  issuing 
each  original  patent,  $20;  each  application  for  reissue,  $30;  each  ap- 
plication for  extension,  $50;  recording  assignments,  etc.,  extra. 

2  Revised  Statutes,  U.  S.,  1891,  p.  951. 

3  The  applicant  for  a  copyright  is  required  to  deposit  two  copies  of  his 
book  with  the  librarian,  the  cost  of  which  may  in  one  sense  be  reckoned 
as  a  part  of  the  copyright  fee.  There  are,  however,  other  fees  collected 
by  the  librarian,  which  are  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the 
copyright.  As  such  may  be  mentioned  a  fee  of  fifty  cents  for  each  copy  of 
the  certificate;  and  one  of  a  dollar  for  recording  the  assignment  of  a  copy- 
right. 


The  Federal  System.  143 

varied  according  to  the  tonnage.  For  ships  of  less  than  one 
hundred  tons,  the  fee  was  one  dollar  and  a  half,  while  all  ships 
of  over  one  hundred  tons  were  required  to  pay  two  dollars. 
Payments  were  also  made  for  permits  to  land  goods  l  and  for 
each  bond  procured.  In  1789  the  coasting  and  fishing  trades 
were  put  under  special  regulation  'l  by  means  of  licenses,  for 
each  of  which  a  fee  of  fifty  cents  was  collected;  and  in  addition 
a  fee  of  ten  dollars  was  charged  for  each  certificate  of  enroll- 
ment. Foreign  vessels  were  placed  under  similar  restrictions 
and  compelled  to  pay  for  any  privileges  granted  them.  This 
schedule  of  fees  continued  in  force  for  two  decades,3  when  it  was 
decided  to  vary  the  amount  according  to  the  importance  of  the 
port  of  entry,  and  a  salary  was  added  to  the  fees  of  office  in 
some  of  the  Northern  and  Northwestern  ports.  A  decade  later, 
in  1831,  an  act  was  passed  which  required  all  the  fees  collected 
in  the  Northern  custom-houses  to  be  paid  into  the  treasury,  and 
placed  the  customs  officials  of  that  section  on  a  salary.  Up 
to  1864  most  custom  house  officials  of  the  Atlantic  sea-board 
received  as  compensation  all  the  fees  collected  at  their  respective 
offices.  The  enormous  sums  which  some  of  these  positions 
yielded  finally  became  known,  and  as  a  result  Congress  passed 
an  act*  making  $9,500  the  maximum  amount  which  any  collec- 
tor should  be  allowed  to  retain,  and  providing  that  any  excess 
above  this  amount  should  be  paid  into  the  treasury.  These  pro- 
visions, however,  did  not  prove  satisfactory.  So  in  1879  a  new 
law  was  enacted  which  provided  a  schedule  of  fees  to  be  exacted 
from  all  who  had  dealings  with  the  customs  service.  These 
multitudes  of  fees,  consisting  usually  in  small  vexatious  exac- 
tions, were  in  many  cases  inadequate  to  compensate  the  officers 
concerned,  except  in  the  busy  ports  where  they  aggregated 
enormous  sums.  One  of  the  sections 5  of  the  last  named  act  pro- 
vided fixed  salaries  for  naval  officers,  collectors,  and  surveyors 
of  the  chief  ports.     There  was   no  reason   why   this   provision 

1  In  1887  the  fee  for  each  permit  was  twenty  cents. 
1  Revised  Statutes,  U.  S.,  I,  704. 

3  Ibid.,  Ch.  107,  par.  7,  1822. 

4  Ibid.,  XIII,  134. 
6  Section  23. 


144  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

should  not  have  been  extended  to  all  the  other  officers  con- 
nected  with  the  customs  service,  specially  since  action  to  this 
effect  had  been  repeatedly  recommended  by  the  secretaries  of  the 
treasury. J 

The  tariff  law  of  1890,  known  as  the  McKinley  bill,2  abolished 
ail  fees  exacted  for  oaths  except  so  far  as  provided  in  the  act 
itself.  It  also  placed  all  officers  on  salaries  equal  to  the  amount 
of  fees  which  each  would  have  been  entitled  to  receive  for  his 
services  during  the  year.  This  was  a  step  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, but  only  a  very  small  one,  as  the  salaries  were  left  just  as 
indeterminate  and  unclassified  as  ever. 

C.       LICENSES    TO    VESSELS. 

In  1864  a  new  standard  was  adopted  for  estimating  the  fee  or 
charge  for  each  permit  or  license  to  vessels,  in  that  the  fee  was 
was  made  to  vary  from  twenty-five  cents  to  one  dollar,  accord- 
ing to  the  tonnage  of  the  vessel.  Fees  for  permits  to  vessels 
belonging  to  foreigners  were  fixed  higher  than  those  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States.  Then  came  an  act  in  1871  fixing  the  li- 
cense fee  at  twenty-five  dollars  for  a  vessel  of  one  hundred  tons 
burden,  and  charging  five  cents  extra  for  each  ton  over  that 
limit.  The  same  change  is  noticeable  in  the  fees  which  were 
allowed  for  measuring  vessels.3  Similar  standards  are  applied 
to  boat  inspection  fees.  The  first  law*  on  this  subject  was  en- 
acted in  1838,  and  fixed  a  fee  of  five  dollars  for  the  inspection 
of  any  vessel,  and  the  same  for  each  boiler  inspection.  In  1852 
vessels  were  divided  according  to  tonnage  into  four  classes5 
ranging  from  one  thousand  tons  to  less  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five,  the  fees  varying  from  thirty-five  to  twenty  dollars. 
This  schedule  remained  in  force  up  to  1884,  when  inspectors 
were  paid  salaries ;  and  the  fees,  which  were  fixed  at  ten  dollars 
for  a  vessel  of  less  than  one  hundred  tons  and  fifteen  cents  extra 
for  each  additional  ton,  were  collected  for  the  treasury. 

1  Report  on  Collection  of  Duties,  Secretary  Manning,  1895. 

2  Statutes,  U.  S.,  131,  sec.  22. 

zActs,  1790,  Ch.  34,  sec.  44;  and  1864,  Ch.  83,  sec.  45. 
4  Statutes  at  Large,  1838,  V,  304. 
6  Statutes,  U.  S.,  1852,  V,  73. 


The  Federal  System.  145 

D.       MISCELLANEOUS    MARITIME    FEES. 

Numerous  other  fees  were  from  time  to  time  collected  for  li- 
censes to  carry  on  maritime  and  other  pursuits.  Wreckers  and 
pilots  were  compelled  to  obtain  licenses  at  a  cost  of  five  dollars 
besides  a  fee  of  one  dollar  for  each  annual  renewal  of  the  same.1 
In  1864  this  charge  was  increased  to  ten  dollars  for  each  license.2 
A  few  years  later  the  captains,  mates,  and  engineers  were  placed 
under  the  same  requirements.3  From  1872  shipping  commis- 
sioners *  were  allowed  a  fee  of  two  dollars  for  each  man  engaged 
by  them  for  a  crew  and  fifty  cents  for  each  certified  discharge. 
This  law  was  modified  in  1884  in  such  a  way  that  all  the  fees 
of  the  shipping  commissioners  were  required  to  be  paid  into  the 
treasury.5 

E.       COURT    FEES. 

Most  of  the  inferior  officers  of  the  Federal  courts  were,  until 
quite  recently,  allowed  to  retain  some  or  all  of  the  fees  con- 
nected with  their  respective  offices;  nor  had  any  serious  attempt 
been  made  to  reduce  the  income  derived  from  fees  to  any  fixed 
amount,  until  the  act  of  1853,  by  which  the  allowance  of  deputy 
marshals  was  limited  to  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  fees  earned 
by  them.6  This  was  followed  by  an  act  requiring  marshals  to 
give  an  account  of  all  fees  collected,  which  finally  resulted  in 
the  act  of  1878  fixing  the  maximum  compensation  of  United 
States  marshals  at  $6,000,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  fees  earned 
after  the  office  expenses  had  been  deducted.  The  clerks  of  the 
United  States  Courts  have  continued  to  receive  fees  as  salary 
down  to  the  present;  and  only  slight  changes  have  been  made 
in  the  original  bill  regulating  their  fees,  for  the  most  part  in 
increasing  the  number  of  acts  for  which  fees  might  be  collected. 
United  States  district  attorneys 7  have  also  received  the  fees  col- 

1  Revised  Statutes,  U.  S.,  1853,  73. 

2  Statutes,  U.  S.,  120. 

3 16  Revised  Statutes,  U.  S.,  473. 

♦17  Ibid.,  278. 

'22  Ibid.,  8.    23  Ibid.,  59. 

6  Ibid.,  1853,  X,  161. 

1 1bid.,  1789  and  1791;  district  attorney  paid  salary  and  fees. 
10 


146  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

lected  for  their  services  almost  up  to  the  present.  It  is  only  with- 
in the  last  year  these  positions  have  become  salaried.  The  ter- 
ritorial court  officials  still  receive  many  fees  for  numerous  serv- 
ices which  are  usually  performed  by  other  officers  in  the  states.1 
For  example,  fees  for  marriage  licenses,  recorders'  fees,  and  the 
like  are  still  received  by  them. 

F.       LAND    OFFICE    FEES. 

It  is  in  the  Land  Office  that  we  first  see  the  government 
change  from  a  fee-system  of  compensation  to  a  salary  system. 
The  prospects  of  gradually  increasing  government  land  sales 
made  it  evident,  that  the  fees  in  many  offices  would  greatly 
exceed  the  legitimate  compensation  for  the  work  performed; 
and  it  was  equally  evident  that  no  adjustment  of  the  schedules 
could  bring  an  equilibrium  between  work  and  pay  about.  So, 
as  early  as  1818,  we  find  an  act  which  gave  the  land  office  regis- 
ters and  receivers  an  annual  salary  of  $1,500,  besides  one  per 
cent,  of  the  money  collected  by  their  respective  offices;  pro- 
vided, however,  that  no  salary  should  exceed  $3,000  per  annum. 
But  even  this  provision  made  a  position  in  the  land  office  of  a 
rapidly  growing  state  exceedingly  desirable.  Hence  in  1859 
another  act2  was  passed  which  limited  the  salary  of  registers 
and  receivers  to  $2,500  in  Western,  and  $3,000  in  the  Pacific 
states.  The  land  office  fees  constituted  a  very  large  part  of 
the  original  price  of  the  land.3  In  the  Pacific  states  the  fees  were 
thirteen  per  cent,  of  the  total  price,  in  some  of  the  others  they 
constituted  eleven  per  cent.,  and  in  many  cases  even  more. 
When  the  surveyors'  fees  are  added  to  these,  one  can  realize 
what  an  important  item  in  the  cost  of  the  public  land  these  fees 
were.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  also  that  the  fees  had  to  be 
paid,  even  though  the  land  was  obtained  by  pre-emption,  by 
tree  claim,  or  in  any  other  manner.  The  land  office  fees  have 
at  times  been  used  by  unscrupulous  officials  as  instruments  for 

1  Ibid.,  p.  96. 

2  Statutes  at  Large,  XI,  378. 

3  Schedule  in  1869:  160  acres  of  land  at  $1.25  per  acre,  commission  $18; 
80  acres  at  $1.25,  commission  $9;  40  acres  at  $1.25,  commission  $7;  80  acres 
at  $2.50,  commission  $18. 


The  Federal  System.  147 

carrying  on  some  of   the  most   notorious  and  fraudulent   land 
swindles,  to  the  injury  of  actual  settlers. 

G.       MISCELLANEOUS     PEES. 

The  consular  and  diplomatic  offices  collect  each  year  certain 
fees  for  passports,  consular  papers,  and  other  services.  Orig- 
inally these  formed  part  of  the  salary1  of  the  consul  or  minister, 
as  did  the  fees  collected  in  the  consular  courts;  but  in  1860 
these  officials  were  required  to  account2  for  all  fees  received  in 
any  way  in  the  exercise  of  their  judicial  authority.3  Many  of 
the  fees  were  diminished  in  amount  and  some  of  them  entirely 
abolished  by  the  act  of  1891.  Postmasters  were  also  paid  orig- 
inally by  means  of  fees ;  and  a  remnant  of  the  old  system  exists 
even  today,  in  the  fact  that  the  salary  of  postmasters  in  the 
small  towns  depends  upon  the  average  receipts  of  their  respec- 
tive offices  for  the  four  years  preceding.  As  far  back  as  1845 
an  attempt  was  made  to  limit  the  compensation  of  these  officials 
by  an  act  which  provided  that  none  of  them  should  retain  more 
than  $5,000  per  year  including  his  salary.  Any  excess  should 
be  accounted  for  and  paid  into  the  treasury.  This  act  was  soon 
superseded  by  the  present  law.  Other  fees  regulated  from  time 
to  time  by  Congress  are  the  municipal  fees  of  all  kinds  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Fees  for  liquor  licenses  and  for  licenses 
to  innkeepers,  peddlers,  and  many  other  occupations  have  been 
fixed  and  changed  again  and  again  by  Congress.  One  act  which 
very  well  illustrates  the  tendency  of  changing  from  fees  to  reg- 
ular salaries,  is  that  of  1842,  which  expressly  prohibits  any 
police  official  in  the  District  of  Columbia  from  receiving  any 
gift,  fee,  or  emolument  other  than  his  regular  salary. 

The  spirituous  liquor,  or  excise  licenses,  as  they  are  called, 
and  the  industrial  licenses  of  the  war-period  were  not  fees,  but 
taxes  pure  and  simple.  They  were  levied  mainly  for  revenue, 
and  were  essentially  the  same  as  the  other  indirect  taxes  of 
this  period,  because  no  real  privileges  or  services  of  any  kind 
were  granted  in  return  for  their  payment. 

1  Revised  Statutes,  I,  255. 

2 12  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  75. 

3  Revised  Statutes,  U.  S.,  XIV,  226. 


148  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE   EVOLUTION   OF   THE  FEE  SYSTEM  AS  SHOWN  BY  THE 
STATE  AND  FEDERAL  STATUTES. 

The  foregoing  treatment  of  the  changes  in  the  Federal  fee 
system,  illustrates  incidentally  a  tendency  which  manifests  it- 
self in  the  development  of  almost  every  state  or  municipality  in 
the  United  States.  This  tendency  is  to  pass  from  a  primitive 
fee-system  to  a  salary  system.  The  forces  which  make  this 
change  necessary  and  desirable,  lie  in  the  economic  conditions 
of  a  rapidly  growing  and  progressive  community.  In  a  static 
society,  a  society  in  which  neither  wealth  nor  population  are  in- 
creasing, the  fee-system  of  remunerating  public  servants  may, 
with  effectual  supervision  and  wise  administration,  continue  for 
any  period  of  time  without  resulting  in  either  needless  expense 
or  fraud  of  any  kind.  But  in  a  progressive  community,  like 
any  one  of  our  large  cities  or  even  states,  it  has  been  impossi- 
ble so  far  to  frame  any  system  or  schedule  of  fees  which  will  be 
economical  and  still  not  be  unjust  to  the  fee-paid  officer.  A 
purely  clerical  office  in  a  city  may,  with  a  certain  schedule  of 
fees,  yield  $5,000  this  year;  and  next  year,  on  account  of  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  city  or  a  revival  in  business,  it  may  yield 
five  times  that  amount,  or  because  of  business  stagnation,  pro- 
duce only  a  small  fraction  of  it.  If  any  schedule  should  be  made 
absolutely  just,  it  would  require  that  the  fees  be  adjusted  to  eco- 
nomic conditions  each  year  by  men  who  could  forecast  accurately 
the  future  and  take  into  consideration  all  possible  changes  and 
chances.  Such  conditions  are  Utopian.  No  legislature  or 
county  board  can  foresee  how  much  business  a  district  court  is 
going  to  have  in  a  certain  year.  Fees,  especially  those  of  local 
officers,  when  once  fixed  are  not  likely  to  be  changed  very  soon. 
The  inertia  of  such  legislation  is  very  great;  all  the  political 
forces  are  against  it.  The  growth  of  population  may  cause  a 
certain  position  to  yield  fabulous  sums  within  a  very  few  years. 
This  continues  until  some  scandal  reveals  the  true  condition  of  af  - 


Evolution  of  Fee  Systems  in  the  United  States.  149 

fairs  to  the  public,  and  arouses  it  so  that  it  overcomes  the  in- 
ertia and  obtains  a  revision  of  the  law.  But  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  invent  a  fee  bill  for  an  office  which  has  been  yield- 
ing $50,000  a  year^so  as  to  make  it  yield  only  $5,000. 
The  easiest  way  for  legislation  to  accomplish  its  pur- 
pose is  to  place  the  office  on  a  salary  and  require  the  old 
fees  of  the  office  to  be  turned  into  the  treasury.  At  any  rate, 
such  has  been  the  trend  of  fee-legislation.  The  Federal  legisla- 
tion reflects  the  movement  more  decidedly  than  that  of  the 
states;  still  a  careful  investigation  of  the  laws  of  any  state  will 
show  the  same  tendency.  The  legislation  of  one  state  for  a 
short  number  of  years  may  not  reveal  such  a  change;  but 
taken  all  together  the  laws  of  any  state  show  a  more  decided 
tendency  away  from  the  fee  system  of  compensating  officials 
than  would  seem  possible  to  a  superficial  observer.  There  is  no 
regularity  in  the  movement  among  the  different  states.  One 
legislature  passes  an  act  requiring  the  fees  of  one  office  to  be 
turned  into  the  treasury,  and  another  legislature  makes  the  same 
law  applicable  to  a  different  office.  At  long  intervals  we  find 
acts  which  are  almost  revolutionary  in  character,  in  that  they 
are  made  applicable  to  a  large  number  of  officials.1 

The  individual  laws  are  not  the  result  of  a  general  theory  or 
force  of  any  kind,  but  are  as  a  rule  passed  under  pressure  of 
actual  local  or  special  conditions.  In  some  cases  aggravating 
frauds  and  over-charges,  in  others  considerations  of  public 
economy  constitute  the  motive  power;  but,  whatever  be  the 
immediate  causes,  the  results  show  by  the  very  fact  of  their 
generality,  that  the  indirect  cause  lies  in  the  fee  system  itself. 

There  is,  however,  another  method  by  which  this  tendency  and 
its  consequences  may  be  easily  brought  to  light.  This  is  by  a 
comparison  of  the  number  of  salaried  officers  or  the  common- 
wealth's pay-roll,  as  it  may  be  called,  with  the  unsalaried  or 
fee-paid  officials  at  different  times.  A  comparative  study  of 
this  kind  shows  very  clearly  how  one  by  one  the  fee-paid  offi- 
cials are  transferred  to  the  salary  list.  Allowance  must,  how- 
ever, be  made  for  those  cases  in  which  the  office  fees  are 
abolished    entirely    instead   of   being    turned    into   the    public 

1  Statutes,  N.  Y.,  1839,  Ch.  338,  sec.  3. 


150  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

treasury.  On  the  other  hand,  this  comparison  will  not  repre- 
sent adequately  the  change;  because  the  number  of  fee-collecting 
offices  has  increased,  owing  to  the  differentiation  in  public 
functions  which  has  already  been  explained. 

Furthermore,  the  transference  of  political  functions  and  con- 
sequently of  fees,  from  state  to  municipal  bodies,  has  been  very 
general  in  all  parts  of  the  country.  But  even  after  all  due 
allowances  are  made,  the  evidence  is  everywhere  very  strong  to 
show  that  the  salary  system  is  gradually  gaining  ground,  and 
that  in  time,  if  the  movement  continues,  it  will  displace  the 
fee-system.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  fee-system  is  likely  to 
disappear  entirely.  It  simply  means  that  more  and  more  fees 
are  required  to  be  turned  into  the  treasury  instead  of  being 
absorbed  by  the  officers  collecting  them.  It  is  a  movement 
toward  economy  in  the  management  of  public  affairs  which  is  in 
line  with  all  the  ideas  of  the  age. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  FEE-SYSTEM  AS  REFLECTED  BY  THE 
AMERICAN  CONSTITUTIONS. 

No  series  of  public  documents  can  be  found  which  can  serve 
as  a  better  index  of  the  sober,  conservative  public  sentiment  of 
the  United  States  taken  as  a  community,  than  the  national  and 
state  constitutions.  A  study  of  the  provisions  which  may  be 
found  in  the  state  charters  and  constitutions,  and  which  relate 
directly  or  indirectly  to  the  fee-system,  from  the  first  settle- 
ment down  to  the  present  day,  better  than  anything  else  shows 
the  questions  which  were  most  important  in  the  minds  of  the 
framers  of  the  constitution.  Besides,  each  state  constitution  would 
naturally  reflect  that  part  of  the  fee-system  which  in  that  par- 
ticular locality  demanded  regulation. 


Evolution  of  Fee  Systems  in  the  United  States.  151 

Taking  up  the  constitutions  and  charters  in  this  way,  we  find  u 
in  the  early  charters  no  reference  to  the  fee-system  whatever, 
with  the  exception  of  provisions  to  the  effect,  that  judges  and 
chancellors  shall  receive  and  collect  no  fees  oth^r  than  those 
fixed  by  law.  Such  a  provision  was  contained  by  six  of  the  char- 
ters and  constitutions  of  the  last  century,  and  by  seven  of  the 
constitutions  framed  after  1800. «  This  shows  that  the  early 
colonists  attempted  to  guard  against  the  extortions  which  they 
had  experienced  in  England,  and  that  they  feared  the  power  of 
unscrupulous  judges.  This  provision  was  especially  significant 
in  the  Charters,  because  the  judges  were  appointed  by  the 
Crown.  Other  provisions  in  these  early  charters  were  to  the  effect, 
that  the  fee-bill  of  judges  should  be  posted  in  conspicuous 
places  ;2  that  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  should  charge  no  fees  ex- 
cept those  allowed  by  law;3  and  that  no  clerks  of  court  should 
be  allowed  to  colleet  any  fees  except  those  fixed  by  law.4 

As  soon  as  the  colonies  had  achieved  their  independence,  new 
questions  began  to  show  themselves  in  the  constitutional  pro- 
visions  concerning  fees.  The  people  had  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  judges  would  perform  their  functions  better,  if 
they  were  in  no  way  interested  financially  in  the  cases  to  be  ad- 
judicated; and  so  by  special  act  the  legislatures  had  already 
in  many  cases  placed  the  higher  judges  on  salaries  instead  of 
fees.  To  prevent  any  return  to  the  old  system,  a  provision  was 
inserted  in  most  of  the  constitutions 5  adopted  after  the  Revolu- 

1  Va.,  1776;  Vt.,  1777,  Sec.  23;  S.  C,  1776,  Art.  24;  Penn,  1683,  Art.  9,  and 
1776,  Art.  2,  Sec.  30;  Md.,  1776,  Art.  52;  Ohio,  1851,  Art.  4,  Sec.  14;  N.  C, 
1828,  Art.  3,  Sec.  15;  Neb.,  1866,  Art.  4,  Sec.  6;  La.,  1845,  Art.  71;  Ark., 
1836,  Art.  6,  Sec.  8;  1864,  Art.  6,  and  1865,  Art.  7,  Sec.  19. 

2  Constitution,  Pa.,  1683,  IX. 

3  Pennsylvania,  1776,  Art.  II,  Sec.  30. 

4  Arkansas,  1836,  Art  VI,  Sec.  8. 

6  The  following  is  the  order  in  which  this  provision  appears  in  the  con- 
stitutions of  the  several  states:  Pa.,  1776,  Art.  2,  Sec.  23;  Tenn.,  1796, 
5,  3;  Del.,  1792,  (J,  3;  Ohio,  1802,  4,  14;  Ala.,  1819,  5, 11;  Me.,  1820,  5,  2; 
Mich.,  1835,  6,  2;  Fla.,  1836,  5,  5;  N.  Y.,  1846,  6,  21;  111.,  1848,  6,  16;  Cal., 
1848,  6, 11;  Wis.,  1848,  4, 10;  Va.,  1850,  6, 14;  Kans.,  1859,  3, 15;  Ore.,  1857, 
13,  1;  Nev..  1864,  6, 10;  La.,  1846,  78;  Ga.,  1865,  4,  3;  Md.,  1862,  4,  37;  S.  C, 
1868,  4,  9;  Neb.,  1866,  4,  7;  Tenn.,  1870,  6,  7;  Ark.,  1874,  6,  8;  Col.,  1876, 
6, 18;  Mont.,  1889,  8,  30;  Id.,  1889,  5,  15;  S.  D.,  1891,  5,  30. 


152  Urdahl — Historical  Survey  of  Fee  Systems. 

tion  to  the  effectjthat  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  and  Superior 
courts  should  not  be  allowed  any  fees  or  perquisites  of  any  kind/\ 
As  time  went  on,  judges  of  other,  and  lower,  courts  were  placed 
on  salaries  and  forbidden  by  statute  to  collect  fees ;  and  the  con- 
stitution makers  enacted  this  provision  into  permanent  law. 
One  state  adds  the  judges  of  probate  court  to  the  list  of  salaried 
magistrates,  and  another  state  some  other  class  of  judges,  until 
the  transfer  is  complete.  The  later  constitutions  have  a  provi- 
sion to  the  effect  that  all  judges  shall  pay  into  the  treasury  the 
fees  collected  and  receive  salary  as  compensation.1 

This  movement  which  is  almost  completed  as  regards  judges, 
is  only  at  its  beginning  with  the  court  officers  such  as  court 
clerks,  constables,  and  the  like.  But  some  constitutional  con- 
ventions have  already  taken  the  bold  step  of  providing  that  no 
public  court  officer,  with  the  exception  of  justices  of  the  peace, 
J  shall  receive  for  his  own  use  any  fees  or  perquisites  whatever, 
but  shall  be  paid  a  salary  fixed  within  certain  limits  by  the  leg- 
islature. Other  states  will  follow  this  example,  and  it  is  but  a 
matter  of  time  until  this  reform  is  completed. 

Other  provisions  in  the  state  constitutions  show  another 
movement,  which  is  quite  as  striking  as  that  just  mentioned. 
This  is  the  movement  which  has  resulted  in  placing  most  of  the 
state  officers  on  salaries  instead  of  fees.  It  originated  in  some 
of  the  colonies,  by  requiring  the  governor  to  turn  the  license 
fees  into  the  treasury,  and  little  by  little  the^other  fees  and  per- 
quisites were  taken  away  from  him.  This  change,  however,  came 
about  a  half  a  century  later  than  that  concerning  the  judges. 
One  or  two  constitutions  provide  that  the  governor  shall 
receive  no  fees  for  his  own  use,2  but  they  say  nothing  about  the 
other  state  officers.  Georgia  by  a  constitutional  provision 
/  placed  her  attorney-general  on  a  salary  in  1782,  and  in  1798 
added  her  state-treasurer  and  surveyor-general  to  the  list.  No 
other  constitutions  had  any  provisions  concerning  this  subject 
until  that  of  California  in  1848,  which  placed  the  governor, 
lieutenant-governor,  secretary   of  state,   comptroller,    attorney- 

1  Kas.,  1859,  Art.  8,  Sec.  15;  Md.,  1867,  4,  37;  Pa.,  1873,  5,  13;  Col.,  1879, 
4,  19;  Ala.,  1875,  6,  10. 
2Md.,  1867,  Art.  2,  Sec.  21;  Me.,  1863,  Art.  5,  Sec.  6. 


Evolution  of  Fee  Systems  in  the  United  States.  15$ 

general,  treasurer,  and  surveyor-general  on  salaries  and  forbade 
them  to  receive  fees.1  After  1863  a  provision  to  the  effect  that 
state  officers  shall  turn  the  fees  of  office  into  the  treasury  becomes 
quite  general,  especially  in  the  West.2  A  few  other  provisions 
of  diverse  tendencies  are  to  be  found;  but  they  are  as  a  rule 
isolated  instances,  and  do  not  illustrate  any  general  movement. 
A  few  Western  constitutions  are  of  special  significance,  because 
they  have  attempted  to  regulate  the  fees  of  all  county  officials. 3 

1 A  few  constitutions  take  the  fees  away  from  only  a  few  state  officers, 
viz.:  La.,  1879,  Sec.  77;  auditor,  secretary,  and  treasurer.  Ala.,  1875, 
Art.  5,  Sec.  25,  ditto. 

2  Constitution,  Ore.,  Art.  13,  Sec.  1;  S.  D.,  1891,  21,  2;  N.  D.,  1891,  3, 
84;  Nev.,  1864,  17,  14;  Neb.,  1875,  5,  24;  Mont.,  1889,  7,  4;  Md.,  1874,  5, 
24;  Mich.,  1850,  9,  1;  La.,  1879,  Sec.  77;  111.,  1870,  5,  23;  Id.,  1889,  4, 19; 
Fla.,  1885,  4,  21;  Col.,  1876,  4,  19;  Cal.,  1879,  4,  19;  Ark.,  1874,  19,  11. 

3  See  pp.  186-189,  seq. 


154     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


PART  II. 

THE  FEE  SYSTEM  AS  IT  EXISTS  AT  PRESENT. 

To  obtain  an  adequate  conception  of  the  present  character  of 
the  fee-system  in  the  United  States,  it  is  necessary  to  keep  con- 
stantly in  mind  the  economic  background,  or  setting,  as  it  were, 
of  the  legislation  concerning  those  public  functions  and  activi- 
ties which  invoke  fee-payments.  Laws  and  regulations  by  them- 
selves mean  almost  nothing,  unless  they  are  supplemented  by  a 
knowledge  of  the  conditions  under  which  they  exist.  The  ab- 
sence of  slavery  is  by  no  means  the  most  important  character- 
istic of  the  epoch  which  begins  at  the  close  of  the  war.  The 
great  industrial  forces,  although  many  of  them  were  in  opera- 
tion before  the  war,  had  Dot  become  so  powerful  that  their  in- 
fluence could  be  felt  and  observed  as  easily  as  it  could  be  after- 
wards. Production  on  a  large  scale  did  exist  to-  some  extent 
during  the  "Fifties;"  but  concentration  of  production  as  we 
know  it  to-day,  was  impossible  until  the  modern  transportation 
facilities  had  been  developed.  The  great  trans-continental  and 
other  railroad  systems  were  all  of  them  built  immediately  be- 
fore or  after  the  war;  and  were,  in  one  sense,  the  direct  causes 
of  the  expansion  of  markets  from  purely  local  to  national  limits. 
This  market  expansion  made  the  development  of  enormous  in- 
dustrial centers  possible.  These  two  factors,  namely,  the  ex- 
pansion of  markets,  and  the  growth  of  cities,  form  the  key,  or 
rather  the  cause,  of  much  of  the  fee  legislation  enacted  dur- 
ing the  last  forty  years.  Another  great  factor  to  which  may 
be  traced,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  most  of  the  remaining 
fee-legislation,  is  the  wonderful  expansion  and  development  of 
the  West.1  This  expansion  brings  to  the  front  new  issues  and 
new  subjects  requiring  regulation,  many  of  which  involve  the 
payment  of  fees  of  one  kind  or  another. 

1  The  indirect  causes  and  other  elements  of  this  expansion  are  of  little 
or  no  significance  to  the  subject  in  hand. 


Inspection  Fees.  155 


CHAPTER  I. 
MODERN  INSPECTION  FEES. 

A.       INSPECTION    FOR   PROTECTION    TO    THE    CONSUMER. 

It  is,  perhaps,  obvious  that  under  the  designation  "Modern 
Inspection  Fees  "  are  meant  only  those  fees  which  are  collected 
in  accordance  with  inspection  laws  passed  in  modern  times. 
An  examination  of  the  laws  of  any  state,  will  reveal  the  exist- 
ence on  the  statute  books  of  a  large  number  of  laws  which  were 
enacted  comparatively  early  in  the  history  of  the  country.  It 
is  also  self-evident  that  these  do  not  as  a  rule  represent  the 
tendencies  of  the  present ;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  often  "  dead 
letters,"  which  have  not  been  repealed  because  no  laws  have 
been  needed  to  displace  them.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  post 
bellum  inspection  legislation  may,  with  a  few  exceptions,  be 
said  to  represent  an  entirely  new  movement,  or  tendency.  The 
articles  which  the  earlier  laws  required  to  be  inspected,  were 
largely  agricultural  products  in  a  more  or  less  crude  state; 
while  the  articles  for  which  the  modern  laws  provide  inspection, 
are  generally  manufactured  products.  Of  these,  however,  only 
those  which  are  most  easily  adulterated,  and  whose  adultera- 
tions are  most  likely  to  result  in  injury  to  public  health  or 
safety,  are  placed  under  any  restriction  whatever. 

1.  Oil  Inspection:  First  and  foremost  in  importance  is  the 
inspection  of  oil  or  petroleum,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  number 
of  states  which  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  enact  compulsory 
oil-inspection  laws.  The  oil-inspection  legislation  probably  or- 
iginated in  the  frequent  explosions  and  consequent  fires  due  to 
the  inferior  quality  of  the  oil  at  first  put  upon  the  market. 
The  modern  oil-inspection  laws  may  roughly  be  said  to  begin 
about  1880.  A  few  instances1  may  be  found  earlier,  but  the 
subject   did   not   become  of  much   importance  until   the   great 

1  Inspection  law,  Ind.,  1863,  3  Stat.  370,  p.  27.  Rev.  Stat.,  Mo.,  1879, 
par.  5848. 


156     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

American  oil  fields  had  been  discovered  and  exploited.  Indeed, 
it  is  the  aggressiveness  and  power  of  the  Standard  Oil  and 
other  companies,  in  keeping  up  the  price  and  lowering  the 
quality  of  the  oil,  which  may  largely  be  considered  the 
cause  of  the  later  legislation  on  this  subject.  The  consumption 
of  oil  increased  enormously,  until  it  became  a  necessity  to. 
everybody;  and  as  the  quality  gradually  deteriorated,  popular 
discontent  made  itself  felt  in  the  form  of  legislation  prohibiting 
the  sale  of  any  oil  below  a  certain  quality.  Public  oil-inspect- 
ors were  provided,  usually  by  appointment,  whose  compensa- 
tion consisted  in  fees  fixed  in  amount  by  law.  In  general  these 
were  determined  by  the  quantity  offered  for  inspection  at  the 
time,  usually  a  certain  number  of  cents  per  barrel.  Many  states 
make  the  fees  regressive  in  amount,  in  that  the  charge  per 
barrel  decreases  as  the  number  of  barrels  inspected  at  the  time 
increases,  from  forty  cents  for  a  single  barrel  to  ten  or  fifteen 
cents  if  over  ten  barrels  are  inspected  at  one  time;1  while  one 
state  provides  that  the  inspector  shall  be  paid  by  the  hour.2 
The  other  state  laws  on  the  subject  fix  the  fee  per  barrel,  rang- 
ing in  amount  all  the  way  from  ten  to  twenty-five  cents,  with 
no  reduction  for  large  quantities.3  Nebraska  pays  its  oil  in- 
spectors fixed  salaries.  Minnesota  requires  all  oil-inspection 
fees  to  be  paid  into  the  treasury,  and  other  states  limit  the 
amount  which  an  inspector  can  receive  as  his  official  income  to 
a  certain  maximum. 

2.  Commercial  Fertilizers :  Another  instance  of  compulsory  in- 
spection for  the  protection  of  buyers  or  consumers  is  that  of 
commercial  fertilizers.  The  importance  of  these  to  agriculture 
and  the  opportunity  for  fraud,  by  means  of  adulterations  and 
imitations,   which  their  manufacture  offers,  has  led  many  states 

lLaws,  Kan.,  1882,  Ch.  180,  par.  5;  Minn.,  1889,  Ch.  246,  Sec.  2;  Ohio 
66,  Vol.  117,  par.  4;  N.  D.,  1890,  107,  par.  4;  N.  M.,  1893,  p.  118;  Md. 
1881,  p.  571;  Fla.,  1893,  p.  88,  one  cent  per  gallon  for  less  than  five  gallons, 
one-fourth  of  a  cent  for  more  than  5,000  gallons. 

2R.  I.,  1896,  p.  449. 

3  la.,  1896,  Ch.  195,  par.  4,  10  cts.  per  bbl.;  Mich.  1881,  p.  43,  16cts.  per 
bbl.;  Ark.,  1883,  Sec.  6-10,  25  cts.  per  bbl.;  Wis.,  1883,  Ch.  156,  10  cts.  per 
cask;  N.  D.  1890,  p.  219,  10  cts.  per  bbl.;  Ga.,  1880,  p.  153;  S.  D.,  1890, 
p.  219,  10  cts.  per  bbl. 


Inspection  Fees.  157 

to  require  official  inspection  or  analysis  before  they  can  be  sold.1 
This  is  another  case  where  an  attempt  is  made  to  protect  the  pub- 
lic, not  against  adulterations  of  farm  products,  but  against 
adulteration  of  manufactured  articles.  One  state  requires  the 
manufacturer  to  buy  a  certificate  of  analysis  from  the  state 
chemist,  at  a  cost  of  fifteen  dollars,  and  to  purchase 
official  labels  stating  the  results  of  the  analysis,  to  be  attached 
to  each  package  sold. 

3.  Lime,  Baking  Powder,  Gas  Meters,  and  other  articles: 
Almost  in  line  with  the  foregoing,  may  be  mentioned  the  state 
inspection  of  lime,  which  is  at  present  compulsory  in  a  few 
commonwealths.2  The  same  purpose  is  manifest  in  the  inspec- 
tion of  gas-meters,  which  is  made  compulsory  in  some  states,3 
while  many  cities  also  have  the  power  to  require,  and  provide 
for,  the  inspection  of  this  article.  Inspection  of  saleratus  and 
baking  powder  is  of  the  same  character,  and  is  already  made 
compulsory  in  several  states. 

All  of  the  fees  mentioned  in  the  preceding,  and  many  others, 
demonstrate  the  fact  that  it  is  manufactured  products,  as  a 
rule,  which  are  deemed  most  liable  to  adulterations  and  other 
frauds.  It  is  the  products  of  urban  or  collective  labor  that 
most  require  the  intervention  of  the  state  for  the  protection  of 
the  consumer.  In  earlier  years  it  was  flour,  beef,  pork,  and  the 
like  about  which  the  legislator  was  most  concerned.  It  is  true 
that  a  few  inspection  laws  have  been  passed  since  1865  which 
affect  provisions  in  general;  but,  with  one  exception/  they  can 
be  found  only  in  the  older  states,  which  have  simply  revised 
and  elaborated  their  old  laws.  The  Western  states  included  in 
the  Mississippi  valley,  which  represent  the  tendencies  of  pro- 
gressive America  more  accurately,  perhaps,  than  any  other  sec- 


1  Laws,  Me.,  1895,  Ch.  94,  fee  $20;  Mass.,  $15  per  ingredient;  Ga., 
p.  6,  23  to  50  cents  per  ton;  Tenn.,  1889,  Ch.  226,  par.  3,  50  cents  per  ton; 
Pla.,  1889,  Ch.  858,  25  cents  per  ton. 

2 Me.,  1875;  R.  I.,  1869,  p.  443;  Del.,  1861,  30  cts.  per  carload. 

3Cal.,  1885,  par.  582,  fee  $2.50  for  each  meter;  Conn.,  1886,  Ch.  169,  $1; 
Ohio,  do.;  Nev.,  1877,  par.  202,  $2.50,  to  be  paid  by  the  user. 

4  Ohio  has  quite  an  elaborate  inspection  law,  passed  in  1876.    See  code 
of  1887,  p.  470. 


158     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

tion,  have  none  of  them,  so  far  as  can  be  discovered,  passed 
any  general  inspection  law  affecting  provisions,  cr  agricultural 
products  in  general. 

B.       INSPECTION  FOR  THE  BENEFIT    OF    THE    PRODUCER. 

Such  a  statement  as  the  above  may  seem  erroneous  to  one 
who  knows  that  many  Western  states  have  compulsory  grain- 
inspection  and  similar  laws;  but  the  grain-inspection  laws  of 
the  West  have  an  entirely  different  purpose  from  the  old  in- 
spection laws.  Their  purpose  is  to  protect  the  seller  and  not 
the  buyer.  They  are  aimed  at  frauds  and  discrimination  prac- 
ticed by  the  great  elevator  companies  against  the  producers 
or  farmers.  These  companies  in  purchasing  would  very  often 
represent  first-class  grain  to  be  of  the  second  or  third  class, 
and  pay  only  third-class  prices.  The  farmers  generally  would 
have  no  means  of  protecting  their  interest,  because  no  other 
buyers  were  within  reach.  Much  of  the  ware-house  legislation 
which  attempted  to  fix  the  ware-house  fees,  had  the  same 
purpose,  namely,  to  protect  the  interest  of  the  farmer  or 
seller  against  the  buyer,  who  was  usually  the  ware-house  man. 
The  oleomargarine  legislation  is  very  similar  in  its  aims  and  ob- 
ject. It  is  enacted  not  so  much  to  protect  the  consumer  as  to 
protect  the  dairymen  against  a  certain  kind  of  competition. 

Most  of  the  regulations  mentioned  originated  in  the  West, 
and  are  a  result  of  the  opening  up  of  its  great  resources  and 
the  expansion  of  its  population,  both  of  which  were  made  pos- 
sible by  the  improved  transportation  facilities.  The  old  prob- 
lem, which  consisted  in  preventing  the  sale  of  inferior  or  un- 
marketable goods,  has  almost  disappeared,  primarily  because 
competition  has  become  so  much  more  perfect.  The  question  of 
determining  quality  or  value  is  no  longer  important,  as  buyers 
and  sellers  are  in  general  more  nearly  on  an  equality  than  was 
the  case  earlier. 

C.       INSPECTION    FOR    POLICE    REGULATION. 

The  character  of  frontier  life,  or  rather  the  form  of  industry 
which  is  best  suited  to  some  of  the  Western  states,  is  responsi- 
ble for  the  change  in  the  significance  of  another  class  of  inspec- 


Inspection  Fees.  159 

tion  fees.  In  the  early  states  hides  were  very  often  inspected 
to  ascertain  whether  they  were  marketable  or  not.  Some  of  the 
Southern  and  Western  states  have  adopted  laws  almost  exactly 
similar  to  the  early  enactments.  They  provided  for  regular 
inspectors,  whose  duty  it  was  to  inspect  all  hides  before  they 
were  sold  or  exported,  and  who  were  allowed  to  collect  fees  for 
such  inspection.1  Stringent  provisions  were  made  to  prevent 
ranch  owners  or  other  individuals  from  shipping  any  raw  hides 
before  they  had  been  inspected.  But  though  the  early  and  later 
laws  are  much  alike,  still  their  purposes  are  widely  different. 
The  inspections  under  the  later  laws  are  not  so  much  to  ex- 
amine and  pronounce  upon  the  quality  of  the  hides,  as  to  ascer- 
tain the  brand  or  mark.  In  other  words,  they  are  police  regu- 
lations to  prevent  concealment  of  the  theft  of  cattle  in  shipping 
the  hides  of  slaughtered  animals. 

But  there  are  a  large  number  of  other  inspection  fees  which 
are  paid  for  purely  police  regulations.  Of  this  character  may 
be  mentioned  those  due  for  the  inspection  of  steamboats 2  and 
boilers;3  of  vessels  by  health  officers;*  of  mines;5  of  build- 
ings; of  halls  used  for  public  purposes;6  of  sheep  and  cattle7 
brought  into  a  state,  and  examined  with  the  view  to  prevent  the 
introduction  of  contagious  disease;  and  many  other  regulations 
of  this  nature.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  kind  of  regula- 
tion is  on  the  increase;  but,  as  a  rule,  the  public  welfare  is  so 
deeply  involved,  that  it  is  often  deemed  advisable  to  pay  the 
inspector  out  of  the  public  treasury.8 

1  Nev.,  1871,  par.  118;  Tex.,  1876,  301,  par.  25;  Fla.,  1889,  Ch.  389,  par.  1; 
Col.,  etc. 
2Cal.,  1885,  I,  Sec.  582;  Me.,  1876,  Ch.  148,  par.  4;  and  others. 

3  Conn.  1886,  Ch.  129,  fee  $5. 

4  Louisiana,  fee  for  vessel  of  7,000  tons,  $30;  for  less  tonnage,  $20;  for 
brig,  $15. 

6  Mont.,  1895,  par.  56,  fee  $10;  Id.,  1895,  fee  $5;  la.,  111.,  etc. 

6  Connecticut,  Maine,  and  others. 

7  Arizona,  1885,  p.  50,  fee  ten  cts.  per  head. 

8  As  examples  may  be  cited  the  inspection  of  bee-hives,  for  the  preven- 
tion of  diseases  among  bees,  and  of  fruit  trees  brought  into  a  state. 


160     Urdahl—The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


D.       INSPECTION    OF    WEIGHTS    AND    MEASURES. 

The  sealers  of  weights  and  measures  as  state  and  local  officials, 
have  tended  to  disappear.  The  reason,  which  has  been  elabor- 
ated in  preceding  chapters,  is  the  gradual  cheapening  and  con- 
sequent diffusion  of  instruments  of  measurement  among  the 
people,  so  that  nearly  every  one  possesses  the  means  of  testing 
the  accuracy  of  his  dealer's  measurements.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  town-weighers  are  still,  as  a  rule,  subject  to  some  regula- 
tions. Some  cities  still  have  public  measurers  of  wood,  and 
weighers  of  hay  and  grain;1  and  others  provide  for  a  compul- 
sory weighing  and  measuring  of  coal2  and  other  articles.  But, 
in  general,  the  accuracy  of  weights  and  measures  can  be  left  to 
the  self-interest  of  buyers  and  sellers  to  secure.  There  are  two 
exceptions,  however:  first,  in  the  case  of  imports  and  the  pay- 
ment of  customs  duties;  and  second,  in  the  gauging  and  measur- 
ing of  liquors  for  the  collection  of  the  excise  tax.  In  both 
cases  Congress  has  enacted  stringent  regulations,  but  in  only 
the  first  instance  is  a  fee  paid  for  the  services  performed.  The 
nationalizing  tendencies  which  the  railways  exerted  on  exports, 
led  to  the  abolition  of  state  export  inspection  laws;  but  inter- 
national commercial  relations  have  necessitated  federal  export 
regulations,3  which  are  in  many  respects  similar  to  the  old  state 
inspections,  except  that  no  fees  are  collected  from  the  exporter 
for  the  services  of  the  inspector. 

E.       MISCELLANEOUS. 

There  are,  furthermore,  a  large  number  of  local  or  semi-local 
regulations  involving  fee  payments,  which  are  not  enacted  for 
protection  either  to  consumer  or  producer;  nor  for  police  regu- 
lation. Some  of  them  may  be  said  to  resemble  the  early  ex- 
port inspections,  in  that  they  tend  to  preserve  and  protect 
some  special  local  industry.  Examples  of  this  kind  may  be 
mentioned:  the  produce  inspection  law  in  Ohio;  the  law  of  Ore- 

1  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

2  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

8  The  refusal  of  foreign  countries  to  take  our  uninspected  pork  and  meat 
has  forced  Congress  to  require  its  inspection. 


License  Fees.  161 

gon,  requiring  salmon  to  be  inspected ;x  the  inspection  of  lumber;2 
and  that  of  tobacco,  in  the  tobacco  growing  states;3  and  so  on. 
Usually  such  inspections  are  confined  to  the  important  staple  of 
some  locality,  which  it  is  imagined  requires  state  intervention 
or  regulation. 

A  great  many  cities  and  municipalities  have  power  to  pass 
ordinances  for  inspecting  various  articles;  but,  as  a  rule,  these 
are  purely  for  police  regulations,  and  fees  are  rarely  collected 
for  the  service  of  the  official  performing  the  inspection.  The 
most  common  example  is  the  inspection  of  milk,  which  is  re- 
quired in  many  of  the  most  progressive  municipalities.  An- 
other example  is  the  inspection  of  steamboats  and  steam  boilers,  * 
which  has  become  largely  a  municipal  regulation.  The  larger 
the  city,  the  more  numerous  do  these  activities  become,  and 
the  more  marked  is  the  tendency  for  municipalities  to  take  over 
gradually  many  of  the  old  state  functions. 


CHAPTER  II. 


LICENSE   REGULATIONS   AND  FEES. 

A.       MARRIAGE    LICENSES. 

The  oldest  and  most  common  form  of  license  regulations  which 
has  existed,  and  which  exists  to-day  in  some  form  or  other  in 
every  state  or  territory  in  the  Union,  is  that  of  the  marriage 
license.  This  is  one  of  the  first,  and  perhaps  the  most  impor- 
tant, of  the  regulations  affecting  that  fundamental  institution  of 
human  society  —  the  family;  and  upon  the  character  of  this  reg- 
ulation, depends  the  success  or  failure  of  the  only  direct  interfer- 

1  Regulation  prescribed  by  the  county  boards. 

2  Oregon,  1880,  p.  17,  par.  6. 

3  Missouri,  1879,  Rev.  Stat.,  par.  5868;  Maryland,  1872,  Ch.  36,  Sec.  21. 

4  Philadelphia,  Statutes,  Pa.,  1864,  Sec.  880,  p.  8. 

11 


162     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

ence  which  the  state  exercises  over  the  marriage  relation.  It  is  an 
important  function,  which  most  states  have  neglected  to  exer- 
cise in  the  interest  of  society.  Only  twenty-one  states  require 
any  returns  of  marriages  to  be  made  to  any  state  officer,  and 
but  few  commonwealths  have  compulsory  registration  of  mar- 
riages. It  would  take  too  long  to  give  even  an  outline  of  the 
public  services  performed  for  which  the  license  fee  is  charged, 
much  less  to  trace  the  causes  which  brought  about  the  legisla- 
tion. Suffice  it  to  say,  that  the  number  and  nature  of  the  re- 
quirements as  outlined  in  the  statutes  of  the  different  states, 
varies  very  decidedly.  One  state  requires  a  statement  of  the 
age  of  the  parties  and  proof  of  their  competency  to  contract 
marriage,  before  the  license  shall  issue ;  another  prescribes  that 
bonds  be  given  as  a  guarantee  that  the  parties  are  entitled  to 
marry;  1  another  simply  prescribes  that  the  license,  or  the  appli- 
cation for  a  license,  be  recorded  in  some  office.  Louisiana  gives 
the  probate  judge  power  to  suspend  marriage,  if  any  objections 
are  raised,  until  a  hearing  has  been  had.  Maine  requires  a 
notice  of  intention  to  marry  to  be  recorded  with  the  town  clerk 
five  days  before  the  license  is  granted.  Maryland  requires  an 
examination  of  the  applicant  for  license,  under  oath,  to  ascer- 
tain whether  any  legal  impediment  to  his  or  her  marriage  ex- 
ists. Massachusetts  requires  notice  of  intent  to  marry.2  Penn- 
sylvania requires  parental  consent  in  certain  cases.  These  and 
many  other  requirements  are  deemed  important  enough  to  be 
enacted  into  law,  and  for  the  exactiou  of  fees  for  the  services 
performed  by  the  officials  in  carrying  them  out.  The  enforce- 
ment of  these  laws,  in  thirty-five  states,  is  left  to  a  mere  cleri- 
cal official, —  the  county  clerk,  county  recorder,  or  some  other 
registering  official.  In  the  other  states  the  licenses  are  dis- 
pensed by  the  county  or  probate  judge.  The  fees  for  these  serv- 
ices of  the  officials,  and  for  the  license  proper,  vary,  as  can  be 
seen  from  the  table  in  the  appendix,  from  fifty  cents  to  three 
dollars.3     Several  states  require  the  fee  for  the  license  proper 

1  Kentucky,  1895,  Ch.  7,  p.  652. 

3  New  Hampshire  requires  certificates  of  intention;  fee  one  dollar. 
Statutes,  1884,  1518,  par.  2. 

3 One  state  has  charged  as  much  as  four  dollars.  Laws,  Md.,  1853, 
Ch.  86. 


License  Fees.  163 

to  be  paid  into  the  state  treasury,  and  give  the  officials  power 
to  collect  extra  fees  for  their  services.1  Most  states,  however, 
give  the  fees  as  perquisities  of  office  to  one  or  more  of  the  offi- 
cials concerned.2  In  many  of  these  cases  the  marriage  license 
fee  loses  its  most  important  function,  namely,  that  of  regula- 
tion. It  was  originally  intended  to  be  a  payment  for  a  privilege 
granted  only  in  cases  where  it  appeared  advisable.  Under  this 
system,  the  pecuniary  interest  of  the  official  is  in  many  cases 
diametrically  opposed  to  his  plain  duty  under  the  law.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  it  is  notorious  that  marriage  licenses  are  rarely  re- 
fused in  any  state.  It  is  largely  to  this  system  that  we  owe 
the  large  number  of  wild  and  runaway  marriages,  oftentimes 
contracted  by  mere  children. 

B.       LIQUOR    LICENSES. 

To  the  great  majority  of  the  people,  the  word  "  license  "  will 
call  to  mind,  or  will  mean,  simply  the  permit  to  sell  liquor, 
which  is  obtained  in  most  states  on  payment  of  a  certain  sum 
of  money.  The  license  legislation  on  this  subject  alone,  when 
taken  together,  shows  a  greater  diversity  in  the  different  states 
than  would  at  first  thought  seem  possible.  In  most  of  the  orig- 
inal states  the  license  charges  as  they  exist  to-day,  are  the  re- 
sult of  a  gradual  increase  of  the  amount  charged  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  century.  For  example,  the  license  fee  in  Rhode 
Island8  has  increased  from  $4  in  1822  to  $400  in  1896.  Many 
of  the  new  Western  states  have  of  course  adopted  laws  which 
are  taken  directly  from  the  statute  books  of  Eastern  states,  and 
some  of  them  have  attempted  new  experiments  in  license  legis- 
lation. Scarcely  two  states  have  exactly  the  same  system.  One 
state  grants  all  the  licenses  directly  through  a  state  official,  and 
receives  all  the  fees  into  the  state  treasury:  another  state  leaves 
both  the  power  to  grant  the  license  and  the  revenue  therefrom 
to  the  local  political   units.     One  commonwealth 4  has  a  license 

1  Delaware  requires  two  dollars. 

2  California  gives  half  to  the  recorder  and  have  to  county  clerk.  Statutes, 
1870,  p.  U8. 

1  Laws,  1822,  pp.  295,  349. 
4 New  York,  "Raines  law." 


164     Urdahl — TJie  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

or  excise  commission,  which  grants  all  licenses  and  turns  half 
the  proceeds  into  the  state  treasury  and  grants  the  other  half 
to  the  counties  and  municipalities.  In  some  states  the  counties1 
are  the  most  important  political  units,  and  the  county  commis- 
sioners or  county  boards  are  given  power  to  grant  all  licenses. 
In  others  the  cities,2  villages,  and  towns  are  given  this  power, 
and  are  allowed  to  use  some  or  all  the  revenue  derived  from  this 
source.3  But  as  a  rule  the  state  legislature  gives  the  counties, 
cities,  or  towns  power  to  grant  the  license  only  under  the  con- 
ditions it  prescribes.  In  some  states  these  are  allowed  a  great 
deal  of  latitude  in  imposing  restrictions  on  their  grants,  and 
oftentimes,  too,  in  prescribing  the  amount  of  the  fee.  In  a  few 
states  the  localities  are  given  "local  option,"  as  it  is  called,  or, 
in  other  words,  power  to  allow  or  entirely  prohibit  the  sale  of 
liquor  within  their  boundaries. 

Pennsylvania*  charges  from  $300  to  $1,000  according  as  the 
yearly  sales  vary  from  $500  to  $10,000.  California5  graduates 
the  charge  from  $60  to  $480  per  annum  according  as  the  amount 
of  sales  varies,  from  less  than  $5,000  to  $120,000  per  annum. 
Arizona6  varies  the  wholesale  license  fee  from  $120  to  $500,  in 
the  same  way,  and  charges  $200  for  each  saloon  license.  But 
this  system  has  not  given  entire  satisfaction,  as  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  obtain  reliable  returns  of  the  amount  of  sales.7 

Still  another  system  is  that  in  use  in  the  state  of  Washing- 
ton,8 which  prescribes  a  minimum  and  maximum  license  fee  for 
counties  and  cities.  Some  commonwealths  prescribe  a  certain 
license  fee  to  be  collected  for  the  state,  and  allow  the  counties 
to  charge  a  county  license   for   their   own  use   up   to   a  certain 

1  North  Carolina,  1896,  p.  123;  Oregon,   1885;  Texas  allows  counties  one- 
half  again  as  much  as  the  state  fee,  for  their  own  treasuries. 
3  Nebraska,  1889,  Ch.  33;  Ohio,  1883,  Ch.  132. 

3  Washington  requires  ten  per  cent,  of  all  license  money  to  be  paid  into 
the  state  treasury.    1882,  par.  2. 

4  Laws,  1891,  248,  par.  1. 

6  California  Code,  of  1885,  3376,  3378. 

6  Arizona,  1887,  2233-2243. 

7  The  fee  is  usually  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  of  the  year  pre- 
ceding. 

8  Washington,  1882,  par.  2;  Connecticut,  1883,  Ch.  137,  par.  5. 


n  Y   "V 

TJNIVERSITY 


License  Fees. 

amount.1  There  are  a  great  variety  of  standards  by  which  the 
amounts  of  the  fees  are  fixed.  Perhaps  the  most  important  and 
widely  accepted  method,  is  to  gauge  the  fees  according  to  the 
population  of  the  city  or  other  political  unit.  More  than  half  a 
dozen  states  have  adopted  this  system  entire,  or  some  modifica- 
tion of  it.  Montana2  divides  her  towns  into  five  classes,  with 
population  ranging  from  300  up  to  10,000,  and  charges  license 
fees  varying  from  $100  for  the  lowest  class  to  $600  for  those 
having  over  10,000  inhabitants.  Minnesota3  charges  $1,000  in 
cities  of  over  10,000  and  $500  in  all  others.  Rhode  Island  4  var- 
ies the  retail  license  fee  from  $200  to  $400  according  to  popula- 
tion. Alabama,  New  Jersey,5  and  Texas  employ  the  same  system 
with  slight  modifications. 

;  Three  states  have  made  the  amount  of  yearly  sales  a  basis  for 
the  amount  of  fees  which  shall  be  paid.  Other  individual  states 
have  systems  which  vary  in  some  particulars  from  all  others. 
In  almost  all  states  a  different  charge  is  made  for  a  wholesale 
dealer's  license  than  for  a  retailer's.6  A  few  states  have  what  is 
called  beer  or  malt-liquor  license,  which  is  cheaper  than  a  regu- 
lar liquor  license;7  while  Kentucky  has  extended  this  method 
still  further,  by  granting  a  malt-liquor  license  for  $50,  spiritous- 
liquor  license  for  $100,  and  a  license  to  sell  both  for  $150. 8  Further- 
more, some  states  grant  what  is  known  as  "quart  licenses."9 
Besides  these  liquor  licenses  there  are  in  many  commonwealths 
licenses  to  distilleries  and  breweries,  with  fees  graduated  accord- 
ing to  the  output  in  barrels10  or  according  to  the  annual  sales.11 

1  Missouri,  1887,  R.  178;  Arkansas  and  Texas  have  similar  regulations. 

2  Montana,  1895,  4063. 

3  Minnesota,  1893,  Ch.  189,  par  1.    Nebraska,  1889,  Ch.  33. 

4  Rhode  Island,  1896,  p.  349. 
6  New  Jersey,  1895,  p.  1810. 

•  Arkansas  charges  $150  for  a  wholesale  dealer's  and  $800  for  a  retail 
dealer's  license. 

1  Michigan,  1881,  p.  148.    Illinois  collects  $300  for  a  dramshop  license  and 
$150  for  a  malt  liquor  license. 
8Ky.,  Laws,  1890. 

9Ga.,  1835,  p.  185;  N.  J.,  1888,  p.  1810. 
10 Mich.,  1881,  p.  148. 
11  Ariz.,  1887,  Sec.  2232;  Mont.,  1894,  Sec.  4063. 


BJ^ 


166     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

Other  licenses  which  are  by  no  means  rare,  are  druggists'  permits 
to  sell  liquor;  likewise  licenses  to  merchants  engaged  in  mercan- 
tile business,  licenses  to  grocers  and  others.  Some  states  pre- 
scribe special  licenses  for  taverns,  for  club  houses,  and  many- 
other  places  where  liquor  is  sold. 

The  tendency  of  the  license  legislation  since  the  war,  has 
been  to  gradually  increase  the  fees.  There  is  scarcely  a  state 
which  has  remained  unaffected  by  this  movement,  although 
changes  in  legislation  of  this  character  are  slow.  The  reform 
movement  has  taken  many  directions  in  the  different  states,  the 
most  striking  of  which  may  be  mentioned:  the  constitutional 
provision  of  North  Dakota,  prohibiting  the  passage  of  any 
license  law;  the  South  Carolina  dispensary  act  which  attempts 
to  change  from  state  regulation  to  state  management;  the  Maine 
and  Iowa  prohibition  laws;  and  others.  In  most  states  a  small 
fee,  ranging  in  amount  from  fifty  cents  to  several  dollars,  is 
charged  by  the  official  granting  the  license,  for  the  clerical 
work  of  issuing  or  recording.1 

c.     peddlers'  licenses. 

Most  of  the  new  states  which  have  been  formed  since  the  war, 
have  found  it  necessary  at  the  very  first  session  of  their  law 
making  bodies,  to  pass  some  sort  of  regulations  for  peddlers; 
and  the  old  states  have  either  continued  the  old  laws  or  elabor- 
ated them  further.  The  diversity  of  laws  on  this  subject  is 
almost  as  great  as  that  of  liquor  regulations.  But  few  states 
consider  it  sufficient  regulation,  to  require  simply  a  state  li- 
cense2 with  a  small  fee  for  the  use  of  the  state,  as  was  the 
nature  of  the  earlier  legislation.  On  the  other  hand,,  some 
require  no  state  license  at  all,  but  have  turned  the  whole  regu- 
lation over  to  the  cities  and  counties,3  in  some  cases  prescrib- 
ing only  the  minimum  and  maximum  fees  which  may  be  charged. 
In  a  large  number  of  other  instances  the  legislature  prescribes 
in  detail  how  the  license  shall  be  granted  and  exactly  what  fees 
shall  be  charged,  but  allows  the  counties  to  grant  the  license 
and  to  put  the  money  into  their  own  treasuries.     Others  adopt 

1  Arkansas  clerk's  fee,  two  dollars. 

2  Revised  Statutes,  Neb.,  1895,  p.  919,  Sec.  251.    Rhode  Island. 

3  Or.,  1864,  par.  14;  Wy.,  1864,  Sec.  14;  111.;  etc. 


License  Fees.  167 

a  middle  policy,  by  compelling  the  peddler  to  take  out  a  state 
license  first  and  pay  a  sum  into  the  state  treasury  for  it,  and 
allowing  each  county  to  grant  a  second  license  for  a  fixed  sum, 
which  license  is  good  only  within  county  limits.  Some  states 
even  allow  townships  to  grant  or  refuse  licenses.1 

The  most  common  method  of  fixing  the  amount  of  the  fees,  is 
a  result  of  an  early  attempt  to  make  it  conform  roughly  to  the 
amount  of  goods  carried  by  the  peddler.  In  the  earlier  days 
the  best  customers  of  the  peddler  were  the  people  who  lived 
away  from  the  main  roads  of  travel  and  distant  from  any 
trading  center.  On  account  of  the  lack  of  good  wagon  roads, 
it  was  customary  for  the  peddler  either  to  carry  a  pack  him- 
self, or  to  have  one  or  more  pack  animals  for  the  purpose.  The 
number  of  horses,  therefore,  came  to  be  a  pretty  good  method 
of  estimating  the  amount  of  goods  which  he  carried.  This  fact 
was  seized  upon  by  the  law  makers  as  a  standard  for  measuring 
license  charges.2  This  system  has  been  introduced  in  many 
states  and  continued  in  use  in  its  primitive  form,  even  after 
wagon  roads  became  common  everywhere  so  that  vehicles  could 
take  the  place  of  pack  animals.  One  or  two  states  have,  how- 
ever, recognized  this,  and  put  peddlers  with  one  horse  and 
vehicle  in  a  class  by  themselves.  California  has  simplified  it 
still  more  by  having  only  two  classes,  namely,  peddler  on  foot, 
and  peddler  with  a  wagon.  Rhode  Island3  has  made  the  amount 
of  the  fee  depend  upon  the  size  and  character  of  the  territory 
within  which  it  is  valid,  and  charges  $60  for  a  license  for  the 
entire  state,  $30  for  the  county  of  Providence,  and  $10  for  any 
other  county.  Some  states  have  peddlers'  licenses  for  river 
traders,  the  cost  of  which  is  gauged  by  the  tonnage  of  the 
water-craft  which  they  use.4     A  new  departure,   Which  is   espe- 

1  N.  D.,  1890,  Ch.  142,  par.  4;  Me.,  1895,  Rev.  Stat,  p.  296;  Wis.,  1870, 
Ch.  72,  par.  3,  and  1895,  Ch.  81. 

8  The  old  form  of  the  law  recognized  three  classes,  as  follows:  (1)  peddler 
on  foot,  (2)  peddler  with  one  horse,  (3)  peddler  with  two  horses.  The  later 
laws  often  run  as  follows:  (1)  peddler  on  foot,  (2)  peddler  with  one  horse 
and  vehicle,  (3)  peddler  with  two  horses  and  vehicle. 

3  Also  New  Hampshire,  1878,  27,  3;  Ohio,  1882,  79,  80. 

4  Florida:  boats  of  20  tons,  $30;  of  less  tonnage,  $10.  Arkansas,  1873, 
par.  20. 


168     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

cially  marked  during  the  years  since  the  war,  is  to  vary  the 
license  charge  according  to  the  character  of  the  goods  sold. 
Thus  we  find  a  large  number  of  states  in  which  lightning-rod 
agents  are  supposed  to  require  special  regulation1  and  are 
charged  heavy  licenses.  Other  states  find  it  necessary  to  dis- 
courage the  peddling  of  watches  and  jewelry.2  Another  class 
which  is  charged  heavy  fees,  includes  venders  of  patent  med- 
icines. One  state  charges  a  certain  sum  per  month,  another  so 
much  per  day.3  Sewing-machine  and  insurance  agents  are 
sometimes  recognized  in  the  same  way.4  In  short,  the  attempt 
seems  to  be  quite  general  to  collect  heavier  fees  for  licenses  to 
peddle  those  goods  which  are  most  likely  to  be  employed  for 
frauds  by  swindlers  or  sharpers. 

D.       SHOWS. 

License  regulations  for  traveling  circuses  have  increased 
greatly  in  importance,  and  although  prescribed  and  executed  at 
present  by  a  great  many  states  directly,  still  in  many  others  the 
whole  matter  has  been  transferred  either  to  the  counties  or  to 
the  municipalities.5  In  some  states  the  movement  has  just  be- 
gun, in  that  the  state  still  receives  a  state  fee  for  its  license  to 
a  company  to  exhibit  within  the  state,  and  the  municipalities 
are  given  power  to  collect  another  fixed  fee  for  each  perform- 
ance within  their  respective  limits.6 

Another  system  gives  the  circus  managers  the  option  of  ob- 
taining a  license  from  the  state  authorities  for  the  whole  state, 
or  a  license  for  only  one  county  or  city;  in  other  words,  grading 
the   licenses    according    to    the   population   of    each   portion  of 

1  Statutes,  Ky.,  1894,  c.6.  Patent  agents  and  lightning-rod  peddlers 
charged  twice  the  regular  license  fee . 

2  Vermont,  1886,  Be  v.  Stat.,  par.  955.  Delaware  charges  peddlers  of 
clocks  $50  in  addition  to  regular  license  charge.  Iowa,  24  Gen.  Stat.,  83, 
par.  3. 

3  Wisconsin,  1883,  p.  165,  $100  per  month. 

4  Florida,  $200  per  annum. 

5  Shows  to  be  licensed  by  two  judges  of  the  court  of  common  pleas.  Fee 
from  $10  to  $200  per  day.    Public  Laws,  N.  J.,  1895,  p.  37. 

•Vermont,  1867,  56,  par.  1;  state  license  $1,000;  each  town  license,  $100 
for  each  day.     Wisconsin,  1890,  Ch.  52,  par.  5. 


License  Fees.  169 

territory,1  and  receiving  all  the  license  money  into  the  state 
treasury  for  the  use  of  the  state.  The  other  extreme  is  to  give 
the  county  board,  or  city  council,  power  to  determine  the 
amount  and  collect  it  for  local  purposes,  sometimes  however 
within  some  maximum  limit.2  The  same  idea  is  carried  out 
where  the  legislature  fixes  the  size  of  the  fee,  but  allows  it  to 
be  paid  into  the  county  treasury.3 

It  is  but  natural  that  the  license  fee  should  vary  greatly  in 
amount  on  account  of  the  differences  in  the  character  of  the 
various  states  themselves;4  for  example,  a  single  license  in 
New  York  or  Philadelphia  would  be  much  more  valuable  than  a 
state  license  for  Delaware  or  for  some  of  our  Western  states. 

The  state  license  charges  are  very  often  pure  taxes,  and  not  pay- 
ments for  any  actual  privileges.  Of  the  same  nature  as  a  circus 
license  is  a  theater  license.  The  fees  for  these  are  still  fixed  for 
many  municipalities  by  the  legislatures.  Alabama  varies  them 
according  to  the  population,  from  $50  to  $100.  California 
gauges  them  according  to  the  seating  capacity  of  the  houses, 
from  $400  to  $600.  Other  states  attempt  to  vary  them  slightly 
according  to  the  length  of  time  or  the  number  of  performances, 
while  still  others  charge  a  certain  annual  sum  for  the  building, 
and  collect  nothing  from  the  theatrical  companies.  The  regula- 
tion of  these  has  already  in  very  many  states  passed  into  munic- 
ipal control ;  and  indeed  it  is  but  natural  that  they  should,  as 
all  the  extra  police  protection  and  all  the  services  of  other  mu- 
nicipal activities  required  by  theaters,  are  rendered  directly 
by  the  municipality  and  not  by  the  state. 

1  Pennsylvania  charges  $1,000  for  the  whole  state,  $500  for  Philadelphia, 
$200  for  Alleghany  county,  and  $50  for  other  counties. 

2  Iowa:  county  board  may  determine  the  amount,  not  exceeding  $1,000. 
16  Gen.  Laws,  Ch.  131,  par.  1. 

3  South  Carolina,  1875,  XV,  845,  par  1. 

4 Kentucky  (1890,  par.  1049),  has  a  peculiar  method  of  gauging  circus 
licenses.  The  law  provides  a  charge  of  $1  for  each  100  voters  in  the  county, 
the  total  not  to  exceed  $50.  For  theaters  the  same  plan  is  used,  but  $20 
is  the  maximum  total.  Incorporated  cities  have  exclusive  right  to  license 
shows,  etc. 


170     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

E.       FERRIES. 

Another  early  state  function  which  has  gradually  been  trans- 
ferred to  the  municipalities,  is  that  of  licensing  and  regulating 
ferries.  The  old  custom  of  granting  ferry  licenses  by  special 
acts  of  the  legislatures,  has  gradually  given  way  to  the  modern 
system  of  general  laws.  These,  as  a  rule,  provide  that  the 
license  shall  be  granted  by  county  boards  or  commissioners, 
and  that  the  fees  shall  be  paid  into  the  county  treasury.  The 
most  common  practice  is  to  provide  some  maximum  and  mini- 
mum limit  to  the  fees  which  may  be  collected  by  these  author- 
ities. The  most  usual  provision  in  this  matter  is,  that  the- 
charge  shall  be  not  more  than  $100  and  not  less  than  $l.r 
Indiana2  puts  the  limits  at  $3  and  $50,  while  Illinois3  charges 
not  less  than  five  $5  nor  more  than  $300. 

Another  system  consists  in  gauging  the  license  fee  according 
to  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  boats.*  Bond  is  quite  often  re- 
quired of  the  licensee,  as  a  guaranty  of  the  safety  and  efficiency 
of  the  service,  and  the  faithful  performance  of  the  business  for 
which  the  license  is  granted. 

F.       AUCTIONEERS. 

The  modern  system  of  regulating  auctioneers,  is  simply  a 
continuation  of  the  method  in  vogue  before  the  war.  Some 
legislatures  still  fix  the  fees  which  shall  be  collected,  but  the 
standard  of  measurement  has  been  changed  somewhat  in  many 
commonwealths.  Idaho  gauges  the  fee  from  $120  to  $400  per 
quarter  according  to  the  gross  amount  of  business,  and  allows 
the  fee  to  go  into  the  county  treasury.  Other  states  employ 
the  same  system.5  Missouri,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  the  fee 
vary   according    to   the   length  of  time  for  which  the  license  is 

1  Ark.,  Wash.,  Wy.,  Kan.,  — the  same  limits;  Neb., —  limits,  $2  and 
$500.    Rev.  Stat,  1895,  p.  593. 

2  Revised  Statutes,  1876,  par.  52,  p.  356. 

3  Statutes,  1845,  p.  252,  par.  2. 

4  Idaho  provides  that  the  license  fee  shall  not  exceed  ten  per  cent,  of  the 
tolls  collected. 

6Md.,  1886,  Ch.  507,  Sec.  503.     Mont.,  1895,  Sec.  4060. 


License  Fees.  171 

issued  —  $50  for  three  months,  and  $75  for  six  months,1  and  so 
on;  while  Vermont  and  other  states  simply  prescribe  the  maxi- 
mum and  minimum  fees,  and  allow  the  local  political  bodies  to 
determine  the  amount  within  these  limits.  In  the  great  ma- 
jority of  cases,  this  regulation  is  left  entirely  to  the  cities  and 
other  municipal  bodies. 

G.       MISCELLANEOUS    LICENSE    REGULATIONS. 

Many  license  fees  are  paid  for  special  regulations  which  have 
become  necessary  only  on  account  of  the  special  economic  and 
social  conditions  of  particular  localities.  Most  noteworthy  of 
these  may  be  mentioned  the  following:  Delaware  collects  a  fee 
of  $30  for  each  permit  to  open  oysters  for  export;  Maryland2 
charges  a  fee  of  from  $2  to  $5  for  each  oyster  boat,  varying  the 
amount  according  to  the  length  of  the  boat;  Mississippi3  allows 
the  counties  to  charge  a  fee  of  $1  per  ton  for  a  license  to  each 
oyster  boat;  and  Delaware  likewise  varies  the  charge  according- 
to  the  tonnage  of  the  boat.  Maryland  *  requires  annual  licenses 
for  permits  to  catch  fish  with  a  seine  or  gill-net,  and  gauges 
the  fee  according  to  the  size  of  the  seine  or  net,  at  the  rate  of 
three  cents  per  square  fathom.  Kentucky  licenses  all  her  water 
craft  on  the  Ohio,  Mississippi,  and  Kentucky  rivers.  South 
Carolina5  and  several  other  states  find  it  necessary  to  regulate 
by  means  of  licenses  ail  boarding  houses  for  seamen.  New 
Hampshire  and  other  states  require  all  who  sell  commercial  fer- 
tilizers to  take  out  a  license  and  pay  a  fee  therefor.6 

Vermont  collects  state  dog  license  fees,7  and  New  Hampshire8 
has  state  steamboat  licenses.  A  few  states  have  recently  pre- 
scribed license  charges  for  permits  to  sell  cigarettes.     Colorado 

1  Revised  Statutes,  1879,  Sec.  4168. 
2Md.,  1886,  Ch.  296,  Sec.  18. 

3  Statutes,  Miss.,  1892,  ac.  3089. 

4  Statutes,  Ind.,  1870,  Ch.  204. 

6  Statutes,  1866,  XIII,  Sec.  8,  p.  472. 

6  Vermont  charges  a  fee  of  $100  for  each.  — 1888;  No.  109,  Sec.  3.  New 
Hampshire  charges  $50.  —  Statutes,  1891,  p.  351. 

7  Statutes,  1894,  No.  119,  Sec.  1. 
8Sec.  1,  p.  100,1881. 


172     Urdalil — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

collects  $100  for  each  detective's  license,  and  charges  $500  for 
a  permit  to  sell  oleomargarine.  Nevada  requires  grazing  li- 
censes, varying  the  fee  according  to  the  number  of  sheep.1 
Numerous  other  occupations  are  here  and  there  required  to  be 
licensed,  before  they  can  be  carried  on.  The  license  taxes  of 
the  Southern  states,  whose  object  is  solely  to  raise  revenue,  can 
not  be  counted  as  license  charges,  but  may  usually  be  classed 
as  occupation  taxes. 

The  development  of  local  self-government  has  brought  about 
the  transfer  of  many  of  these  powers  from  the  states  to  the  local 
political  units.  As  a  result,  there  is  already  a  large  class  of 
regulations  which  are  everywhere  placed  under  municipal  pow- 
ers. One  legislature  grants  more  power  and  another  grants 
less  to  the  local  bodies;  but  every  where  some  license  powers  are 
turned  over  to  the  latter.  The  fees  for  these  are  thus  quite 
regularly  collected  by  municipal  authorities  for  the  use  of  the 
-city  treasuries.  Licenses  to  brokers,  wharfingers,  local  auc- 
tioneers, commercial  travelers,  hucksters,  pawnbrokers,  places 
of  amusement,  hotels,  taverns,  junk  dealers,  boarding  houses, 
boarding  stables,  billiard  tables,  hacks,  slaughter-houses,  wash- 
houses,  bill-posters,  dance-houses,  scavengers,  intelligence  of- 
fices, dealers  in  explosives,  bowling-alleys,  shooting-galleries, 
dogs,  steamboats,  «and  many  others,  have  in  some  states  become 
municipal  regulations.  The  number  is  gradually  increasing;  in 
fact,  some  cities  exercise  more  power  in  this  way  than  many  a 
state  did  a  few  years  ago. 

The  rapidity  of  growth  of  urban  population  and  its  great  con- 
centration is  one  of  the  causes  for  the  rapid  increase  in  the 
number  of  matters  which  require  license  regulation.  Building 
permits  and  sewer  and  water  permits  are  of  this  character. 
Furthermore,  the  peculiar  conditions  of  each  city  present  new 
subjects  which  must  be  taken  under  police  supervision  and  ulti- 
mately become  subject  to  license  regulations.  Milk  sellers  are 
in  some  localities  required  to  be  licensed,  coal  dealers  in  others. 
The  rapid  growth  of  one  section  may  require  special  sanitary 
regulations;  one  quarter  of  a  city  may  be  of  such  a  character 

1  For  5, 000  sheep,  $250;  for  3, 000  sheep,  $200;  for  1, 500  sheep  $75.  —  1895, 
Ch.  36,  p.  53. 


Incorporation  Fees.  173 

that  a  license  for  excavation  must  be  obtained  before  a  cellar 
can  be  dug.  A  city  like  New  York  may  become  so  overrun  with 
petty  peddlers  that  a  city  license  regulating  them  is  an  absolute 
necessity.  Local  meat-sellers  become  more  and  more  of  a  nui- 
sance as  population  becomes  dense,  and  concentration  of  the 
business  in  one  locality  becomes  a  necessity.  Market  privileges 
are  then  paid  for  by  fees  collected  for  the  use  of  the  city  treas- 
ury. The  establishment  of  an  oil  refinery  may  be  so  dangerous 
to  the  safety  of  a  city  that  its  regulation  by  means  of  license 
becomes  necessary.  These  are  but  a  few  examples  of  the  thou- 
sand and  one  cases  where  public  welfare  requires  that  a  city 
shall  have  and  exercise  licensing  power. 


CHAPTER  III. 
INCORPORATION  FEES.1 

PRELIMINARY   REQUIREMENTS. 

The  part  of  the  fee-system  which  can  be  called,  with  most  ac- 
curacy, a  product  of  the  last  three  decades,  includes  that  class  of 
charges  which  is  directly  or  indirectly  connected  with  corpora- 
tions of  various  kinds.  The  present  is  truly  an  age  of  corpora- 
tions. The  gigantic  enterprises  with  which  we  are  familiar,, 
have  been  made  possible  only  through  the  combination  of  capi- 
tal and  ability  which  these  corporations  represent.  It  is  per- 
haps not  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  four-fifths  of  the  aggre- 
gate business  of  the  nation  is  directly  or  indirectly  carried  on 
by  means  of  those  artificial  persons.  The  whole  framework  of 
our  national  existence  is  so  closely  interwoven  with  these  insti- 
tutions, that  it  is  almost  impossible  even  to  imagine  American 

1  Strictly  speaking,  many  of  the  corporation  fees  might  be  considered  as 
a  separate  class  of  license  fees;  but  their  significance  in  the  United  States 
is  so  great  that,  aside  from  other  important  reasons,  they  deserve  a  place  in 
a  class  by  themselves. 


174     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

industry  without  them;  and  yet,  they  are  all  of  them  only  the 
creatures  of  the  legislative  will  of  the  people.  Their  early  char- 
acteristics—  that  they  were  at  first  only  special  privileges 
granted  for  special  public  purposes  and  that  they  were  only 
granted  by  special  acts — have  all  been  gradually  lost  sight  of, 
more  especially  after  the  privileges  of  corporate  existence  began 
to  be  granted  according  to  general  laws.  When  such  a  law  had 
been  in  force  for  some  time,  and  it  was  found  that  everybody 
could  obtain  corporation  privileges  by  conforming  to  certain 
requirements,  it  soon  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  right  which 
was  almost  as  inalienable  in  its  nature  as  any  belonging  to  citi- 
zenship. When,  therefore,  some  states  began  to  charge  fixed 
sums  for  this  grant,  it  was  immediately  designated  by  the  peo- 
ple in  general,  and  even  by  economists,  as  a  tax  on  corpora- 
tions, or  taxes  on  corporate  charters. 

The  forces  which  led  up  to  general  corporation  regulations, 
have  already  been  treated  in  a  different  connection.  To  put  it 
briefly,  the  result  has  been,  that  in  most  states  laws  have  been 
passed,  requiring  those  applying  for  corporate  privileges  to 
conform  to  certain  rules,  the  most  common  being  that  the  char- 
ter, or  articles  of  incorporation,  stating  the  object,  purpose, 
and  so  on,  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  or  some 
other  state  officer.  Sometimes  the  official  approval  of  the  char- 
ter and  a  certificate  of  incorporation,  or  certificate  of  authority 
to  do  business,  must  be  obtained.  In  some  states  they  are  also 
required  to  file  a  statement  preliminary  to  the  grant  of  cor- 
porate privileges. 

A.       CHARGES    FOR   INCORPORATION    PRIVILEGES. 

An  incorporation  fee  is  in  most  cases  collected  for  filing  the 
charter  of  articles  of  incorporation.  A  glance  at  the  table  in 
the  appendix  will  show  that  six  states  charge  only  five  dollars 
and  two  charge  less  than  this  amount,  while  all  the  rest  charge 
amounts  varying  from  five  to  one  hundred  dollars  for  this  serv- 
ice. It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  incorpora- 
tion fees  include  all  the  charges  made  by  the  state  under  various 
heads,  and  that  the  total  amount,  instead  of  the  individual  fees, 
is   the   important    consideration.       The  most   common   and    the 


Incorporation  Fees.  175 

fairest  method  of  gauging  the  incorporation  fee,  is  to  make 
it  proportional  to  the  amount  of  capital  stock.1  Five  states 
have  adopted  this  method  in  full,  and  charge  from  ten  cents  to 
one  dollar  per  thousand  dollars  of  authorized  capital  stock.  Six 
other  states  have  a  slight  modification  of  this  system,  in  that 
they  charge  a  certain  minimum  fee  for  any  amount  of  capital 
stock  up  to  a  certain  limit,  and  then  collect  from  fifty  cents  to 
a  dollar  per  thousand  of  capital  stock  over  this  amount.  A  very 
large  corporation  would,  under  this  latter  system,  yield  some 
revenue  into  the  state  treasury.  These  fees  were  originally 
designed  only  to  cover  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  state  in 
granting  incorporation  rights  and  regulating  them  when 
granted. 

The  dangers  which  may  come  to  the  public  from  corporations 
which  at  times  may  be  organized  for  purposes  that  are  not  the 
very  best,  has  become  quite  apparent  during  recent  years.  The 
harm  which  may  be  done  by  private  individuals  is  great,  but 
that  is  insignificant  when  compared  with  the  injuries  which 
may  accrue  to  the  public  from  incorporated  companies.  In  the 
latter  the  responsibility  is  divided,  because  one  of  the  first 
privileges  which  a  corporation  has,  as  against  the  individual,  is 
limited  liability  for  debt.  It  was  need  of  concentration  of 
capital  which  first  gave  rise  to  this  provision  in  the  incorpo- 
ration laws,  and  the  enormous  industrial  enterprises  which 
have  been  made  possible  by  it,  have  simply  demonstrated  its 
wisdom.  Limited  liability  for  debt  is,  however,  not  the  only 
privilege  which  is  granted  by  the  state  through  its  incorpora- 
tion laws.  There  are  a  great  many  other  privileges  obtained 
now  by  one  company,  now  by  another,  which  are  of  just  as 
much,  and  oftentimes  more,  value  than  the  above-mentioned. 
The  public  purpose  and  interest  in  all  these  enactments  has 
hitherto  been  so  great,  that  no  state  has  attempted  to  charge 
fees  which  are  at  all  equivalent  to  the  value  conferred. 

1  Illinois  charges  $30  for  the  first  $2,500  of  capital  stock,  $50  for  $5,000, 
and  $1  per  $1,000  for  amounts  over  $5,000.  —  P.  L.,  1395,  p.  132. 

North  Dakota  charges  $50  for  the  first  $50, 000  of  capital  stock  and  $5 
for  each  additional  $10,000.  —  Laws,  1891,  Ch.  105,  Sec.  1. 


176     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

B.       BANKING  PRIVILEGES. 

It  required  but  a  few  years  of  actual  experience  to  demon- 
strate the  fact,  that  all  kinds  of  corporations  could  not  be  regu- 
lated by  the  same  kind  of  restrictions,  nor  could  all  be  allowed 
the  same  privileges.  It  was  early  discovered  that  a  banking 
corporation  could  not  be  given  as  much  latitude  as  a  manufac- 
turing concern.  Re-acting  against  the  abuse  of  the  banking 
privileges  which  were  granted  just  before  the  war,  many  of 
the  "Western  states  inserted  a  provision  in  their  constitutions 
forbidding  the  organization  and  incorporation  of  banks  within 
state  limits.1  This  prohibition  was  soon  repealed,  however, 
because  the  need  of  banking  institutions  made  itself  felt  too 
strongly  to  be  resisted.  The  new  bank  act  did  not,  however, 
provide  sufficient  safe-guards  against  frauds  upon  depositors 
and  investors  by  means  of  bank  failures.  As  a  result,  many 
states  determined  not  only  to  regulate  the  incorporation2  of 
banks,  but  to  keep  them  under  constant  supervision  by  means 
of  state  bank  examiners,  who  were  given  power  to  wind  up  the 
affairs  of  any  bank  which  seemed  unsound.  In  some  states  these 
examiners  are  paid  salaries  out  of  the  treasury,  while  in  others 
they  are  allowed  to  collect  fees  from  each  bank  examined.3 

A  new  departure  in  banking,  in  the  form  of  building  and  loan 
associations,  trust  companies,4  and  the  like,  has  grown  up,  and 
is  flourishing  in  many  parts  of  the  country.  These  associations 
were  supposed  to  be  safer,  in  many  ways  better  suited  to  the 
needs  of  the  laboring  classes,  than  ordinary  banks.  Their  spe- 
cial character  has  been  recognized  in  state  laws,  by  special  regu- 
lations and  special  incorporation  fees,  usually  lower  in  amount 
than  those  collected  from  banks.  Most  commonwealths  also 
recognize  the  nature   of   charitable,    educational,   and  religious 

1  Constitution,  la.,  1846;  First  draft  of  the  Constitution,  Wis.,  1848. 

2  North  Carolina  charges  one  half  mill  on  each  dollar  of  capita)  stock  of 
banks,  1895,  p.  122.  Montana  has  divided  banks  into  six  classes,  ac- 
cording as  the  aggregate  business  ranges  from  $5,000  to  $250,000,  with 
fees  for  each  ranging  from  $40  to  $400  per  annum. 

3  The  salary  of  Inspector  of  Finance  in  Vermont  is  apportioned  among 
the  institutions  examined  in  proportion  to  their  taxes. 

'Laws,  Ala.,  1892,  p.  665;  annual  fee,  $200. 


Incorporation  Fees.  177 

corporations,  by  making  the  incorporation  fee  very  small,  often 
merely  nominal  in  amount.1 

C.       INSURANCE     COMPANIES. 

In  course  of  time,  incorporation  laws  have  gradually  been 
adjusted  to  new  and  ever  changing  conditions.  A  comparison 
of  the  laws  of  the  present  with  those  of  the  "Sixties,"  shows 
that  the  latter  have  tended  to  differentiate.  New  classes  of 
corporations  have  sprung  up  which  alone  receive  more  legisla- 
tive attention  at  present,  than  the  whole  subject  did  a  few  years 
ago.  One  of  the  most  striking  examples  of  this  is  the  insurance 
legislation  which  has  been  enacted  during  the  last  thirty  years. 
All  who  have  been  at  all  connected  with  insurance  companies 
for  any  length  of  time,  will  remember  the  lack  of  special  regu- 
tion  and  the  enormous  opportunities  for  fraud,  which  the  early 
insurance  laws  offered.  That  these  opportunities  were  not  neg- 
lected, is  abundantly  exemplified  by  the  large  number  of  insur- 
ance companies  which  obtained  charters,  solicited  insurance  as 
_ong  as  possible,  and  then,  after  having  pocketed  the  premiums, 
became  insolvent.  Many  of  these  were  notorious  as  the  most 
gigantic  swindles  of  the  age.  After  a  few  experiences  of  this 
sort,  public  opinion  became  aroused,  and  schemes  were  devised 
to  prevent  their  recurrence.  Thus  special  insurance  legislation 
began,  in  which  the  legislators  had  few  if  any  precedents  to  go 
by.  We  therefore  see  the  beginning  of  the  tentative  period  in 
insurance  regulations,  out  of  which  but  few  states  have  as  yet 
emerged.  One  of  the  first  attempts  to  accomplish  this  purpose 
was  by  changing  the  method  of  formation  or  incorporation  of 
insurance  companies.  Special  qualifications  were  required, 
apart  from  the  usual  requirements  of  the  general  incorporation 
laws,  and  a  distinct  category  of  fees  was  established  for  insur- 
ance corporations.2 

For  filing  the  charter  or  articles  of  incorporation,  the  fees 
range  from  $6  to  $50.     Eight  states  charge  $25  for  this  service; 

1  North  Carolina  charges  only  one-fifth  of  one  mill  per  dollar  of  stock  of 
loan  associations,  while  banks  have  to  pay  one-half  mill.  Illinois  charges 
$30  for  original  application  for  charter  for  loan  associations. 

2  See  table  of  incorporation  fees  in  the  appendix. 

12 


178     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

two,  $50 ;  one,  $55 ;  two,  $30 ;  and  the  others,  sums  varying  between 
these  mentioned.  Very  often  the  official  granting  the  charter, 
is  required  to  examine  into  the  solvency  of  the  company,  and 
to  ascertain  whether  it  has  sufficient  assets  to  secure  the  policy- 
holders. Special  fees  are  collected  for  such  examinations,  and 
are  usually  given  to  the  examining  official  as  part  of  his  salary. 
Sometimes  the  law  fixes  a  maximum  fee  1  which  may  be  collected, 
but  provides  that  the  examiner  or  commissioner  shall  be  paid 
according  to  the  amount  of  labor  involved.  Other  laws  provide 
for  the  payment  of  the  actual  expenses  of  the  examiner  during 
the  time  spent  in  making  each  examination.2 

D.       ANNUAL    FEES    FROM    INSURANCE    COMPANIES. 

But  an  insurance  company  is  radically  different  from  other 
corporations.  It  may  be  perfectly  solvent  this  year  and  have 
ample  securities  to  meet  all  liabilities,  while  in  less  than  a  year 
it  may  be  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy.  To  guard  against  the 
possibility  of  an  insolvent  company  continuing  to  sell  policies, 
most  of  the  states  have  made  provisions  for  an  annual  examina- 
tion of  all  companies  doing  business  within  a  state,  to  facilitate 
which  each  company  is  required  to  make  an  annual  statement  of 
assets,  liabilities,  amounts  of  policies,  and  so  on.  As  remun- 
eration for  the  expenses  of  this  examination,  an  annual  fee  is 
required,  which  ranges  in  different  states  from  two  to  fifty  dol- 
lars.     This  system  is  in  its  essence  an  annual  grant  of  license. 

Another  peculiarity  of  insurance  companies  is  the  extent  of 
territory  over  which  they  can  operate.  But  few  of  them  are 
limited  to  any  one  state.  A  company  organized  under  the  laws 
of  one  state,  must  therefore  obtain  special  permit  to  carry  on  its 
business  in  another.  There  is  thus  a  large  number  of  regulations 
which  are  only  applicable  to  foreign  insurance  corporations, 
that  is,  companies  organized  in  another  commonwealth.  In  gen- 
eral it  may  be  said  that  the  fees  exacted  from  these,  are  higher 
than  those  collected  from  domestic  corporations.  Some  states 
even    make    the    fees   so   high    that    they    are  almost  prohibi- 

1  Laws,  Texas,  1876,  p.  223,  Sec.  2:    Fee  not  to  exceed  $250. 

2  Minn.,  1878,  Ch.  34,  par.  282;  la.,  12,  Gen.  Stat.,  Ch.  138,  par.  24; 
Wash.,  1890,  par.  15,  —  charge  $5  per  day. 


Incorporation  Fees.  179 

tory. x  These  high  charges  have  led  a  few  states  to  paass  retali- 
tory  legislation,2  providing  that  foreign  insurance  companies 
shall  pay  the  same  fees  which  their  own  state  demands  of  com- 
panies from  other  states.  For  the  security  of  policy  holders  in 
foreign  companies,  these  are  required  to  deposit  with  some  state 
official  securities  sufficient  to  cover  all  risks.  To  ascertain  the 
amount  required  for  this  purpose,  the  policies  must  be  assessed 
by  some  competent  state  official,  to  pay  for  whose  services  fees 
are  usually  collected3  from  the  companies  concerned.  In  order  to 
carry  out  the  laws  regulating  foreign  companies,  it  has  been 
found  necessary  to  require  all  insurance  agents  to  obtain  a 
license  or  certificate  of  authority  to  do  business,  for  which  an- 
other and  small  fee  is  often  collected.  The  most  common  charge 
is  two  dollars,  but  some  states  charge  less,  while  others  collect 
as  much  as  ten  dollars  for  these  licenses.4  Some  attempts  have 
been  made  in  a  few  states  to  have  insurance  legislation  keep 
pace  with  the  specialization  in  the  business  itself.  The  fees  there- 
fore vary  according  to  the  kind  of  insurance,  whether  fire,  life, 
accident,  tornado,  boiler,  live  stock,  and  many  others.  As  a 
rule,  the  fees  are  fixed  so  as  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  mutual 
and  benevolent  associations.  In  consequence  of  this  we  find 
large  organizations,  fraternal  in  name,  which  are  in  reality 
nothing  but  life  and  accident  insurance  companies.  The  ten- 
dency of  the  later  legislation  affecting  insurance  companies, 
has  been  to  increase  the  number  of  regulations,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  increase  both  the  number  and  the  size  of  the  fees  which 
are  charged.5 

1  Washington  charges  two  per  cent,  of  the  total  premiums  collected 
within  the  state.     Connecticut  charges  three  per  cent. 

2  New  Jersey,  1872,  p.  25.    Ohio  and  Nebraska  have  similar  laws. 

3  Ohio  charges  one  cent  per  one  thousand  for  such  valuation,  Texas  col- 
lects ten  dollars  per  million  assessed. 

4  Ohio  allows  any  company  to  pay  a  lump  sum  per  year  for  permission  to 
have  as  many  agents  as  it  pleases,  without  further  license  charge. 

6  The  companies  themselves  have  made  frequent  and  decided  objections 
to  the  collection  of  these  fees,  especially  when  their  amount  was  more  than 
enough  to  cover  the  expenses  of  the  insurance  commissioner's  office.  It 
has  been  argued  by  some  of  their  representatives  that  a  higher  fee  than 
would  be  sufficient  to  cover  actual  cost,  would  simply  be  a  tax  on  those 
who  made  use  of  the  insurance  companies,  because  these  would  necessa- 


180     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

E.       ABUSES     CONNECTED    WITH    INSURANCE    FEES. 

The  vicious  practice  of  allowing  insurance  commissioners  or 
some  other  official  to  retain  some  or  all  of  the  insurance  fees,  is 
still  continued  in  some  states.1  Another  custom,  in  favor  of 
which  no  good  reasons  can  be  given,  is  the  practice  of  allowing 
the  examining  official  to  receive  directly  from  the  company  for 
his  own  use,  the  fees  which  are  supposed  to  cover  his  actual 
expenses 2  during  the  time  consumed  in  the  examination.  Very 
often  these  are  defined  by  law  to  be  mileage,  at  ten  cents  per 
mile,  and  a  certain  amount  per  day  for  the  time  spent  in  mak- 
ing the  investigation.  In  the  first  place,  this  method  may 
yield  a  salary  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  salaries  of  other  state 
officials.3  Then  the  examiner  may  grant  or  refuse  a  permit  to 
transact  business.  If  he  is  at  all  corrupt,  he  may  use  this 
power  to  extort  huge  bribes  from  those  companies  which  are 
doing  business  on  an  unsound  basis.  Furthermore,  the  fee 
which  he  is  allowed  to  receive  directly  from  the  company,  may 
easily  be  increased  by  the  company  into  a  direct  bribe  to  cor- 
rupt and  destroy  the  efficiency  of  a  corruptible  official.  This 
temptation  might  be  partially  removed,  by  requiring  all  fees  to 
be  paid  directly  into  the  state  treasury  and  by  forbidding  any 
official  to  receive  any  gift  or  fee,  under  any  pretense  whatever, 
from  an  insurance  company. 

rily  have  to  increase  their  premiums  to  cover  the  extra  outlay.  This  would 
be  true  if  a  fee  of  several  thousand  dollars  were  collected  annually  from 
each  company,  but  none  of  the  fees  are  actually  so  high  as  to  produce 
any  change  in  the  price  of  policies. 

1  Indiana  allows  the  state  auditor  to  retain  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the 
fees  collected,  besides  his  office  expenses. 

2  Delaware,  New  York,  Minnesota,  and  many  other  states  have  such  pro- 
visions. 

3  Suppose  the  examiner  in  one  of  the  North  Western  states  receives  an 
application  for  examination  from  a  half  dozen  companies  in  New  England, 
and  from  several  on  the  Pacific  coast.  As  soon  as  it  is  convenient  for  him 
he  travels  to  Boston,  and  leisurely  examines  all  the  companies  who  apply 
from  that  section  of  the  country.  The  actual  expenses  which  he  collects 
from  each  company  will  them  include  mileage,  which  alone  may  amount 
in  this  way  to  several  thousand  dollars  in  the  course  of  a  year;  while  the 
real  expenses  of  the  examiner  will  be  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  amount 
collected. 


Examination  Fees.  181 


CHAPTER  IV. 


EXAMINATION  FEES. 


It  has  already  been  pointed  out  incidentally  that  some  of  the 
commonwealths  very  early  required  those  desiring  to  enter  a 
particular  profession  to  have  certain  qualifications.  One  or  two 
states  created  medical  boards,  in  the  beginning  of  this  century, 
to  examine  all  candidates  and  grant  certificates;  but  the  ex- 
tension of  the  state  examination  system  to  other  professions  is 
a  very  late  development.  Many  of  the  so-called  license  fees  are 
often  partly  in  the  nature  of  examination  fees,  and  vice  versa. 
The  early  pilot  licenses  were  of  this  nature.  The  applicant  had 
to  furnish  evidence  that  he  had  served  the  required  number  of 
years  as  apprentice  on  a  regular  pilot  boat,  and  was  often  also 
required  to  pay  a  fee  for  a  certificate.  Experience  brought  to 
light  the  dangers  due  to  incompetent  pilots  much  earlier  than 
those  due  to  incompetency  in  other  pursuits.  The  candidate 
was  often  required  to  prove  his  ability  to  manage  vessels  of  dif- 
ferent tonnage  in  the  presence  of  the  licensing  body.  As  the 
vessels  have  increased  in  size  and  carrying  capacity,  the  diffi- 
culty of  piloting  them  has  increased  proportionately,  and  the 
risk  which  would  be  run  by  entrusting  them  to  incompetent 
men  has  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  state  examination  of 
pilots  has  become  almost  a  necessity. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  name  the  order  in  which  the  different 
professions  came  under  state  supervision  in  this  way.  Some  of 
the  colonies  required  lawyers  to  pass  a  sort  of  examination  be- 
fore their  admission  to  the  bar.  It  has  been  customary  in  most 
of  the  new  states  to  allow  anyone  to  practice  law  who  could 
satisfy  very  slight  educational  qualifications.  The  growth  of 
the  country  has  been  so  rapid,  and  the  spread  of  population  so 
sudden,  that  legal  and  medical  services  by  properly  educated 
and  qualified  lawyers  and  physicians  were,  in  many  localities, 
out  of  the  question.     The  pioneers,  therefore,  had  to  take  what 


182     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

they  could  get.  Furthermore,  the  Western  spirit,  which  looked 
with  favor  on  the  "self-made  man"  attempting  to  work  up  in 
any  profession,  was  opposed  to  stringent  examinations  as  tend- 
ing to  shut  out  all  except  those  with  means  enough  to  attend 
schools.  The  result  is,  that,  even  in  the  present  age  of  pro- 
gress, the  great  majority  of  our  states  allow  individuals  to 
practice  law  and  medicine  who  have  scarcely  any  qualifications 
whatever.  Another  cause  of  this  state  of  affairs  is  the  fact, 
that  many  states  have  turned  over  to  medical  and  legal  schools 
and  to  colleges  the  power  to  grant  degrees  which  have  the  force 
of  state  examinations  in  giving  license  to  practice.  In  many 
of  the  commonwealths  where  state  examinations  are  given,  they 
are  usually  made  easy,  with  the  express  purpose  of  allowing 
those  who  can  study  these  branches  privately  to  obtain  license 
or  certificate.  The  examination  fees  in  the  states  having  this 
system  range  from  five  to  twenty-five  dollars. 

Much  more  general  is  the  requirement  that  pharmacists  shall 
pass  a  satisfactory  examination  before  they  obtain  a  certificate. 
Many  commonwealths  provide  for  examinations  of  assistant  phar- 
macists, and  have  laws  forbidding  the  sale  of  any  drugs  except 
by  a  licensed  pharmacist  or  assistant.1  But  it  is  in  the  com- 
paratively modern  profession  of  dentistry  that  the  most  strin- 
gent regulations  are  made,  if  one  may  judge  by  the  number  and 
amount  of  the  examination  fees.  A  glance  at  the  table  will  show 
that  that  the  fees  range  all  the  way  from  one  to  thirty  dollars, 
the  most  common  charge  being  ten  or  fifteen  dollars. 
In  all  of  the  above-mentioned  cases  the  examining  board  has  the 
power  to  designate  the  institutions  whose  diplomas  shall  ex- 
empt the  candidate  from  state  examination.  It  is,  therefore, 
quite  customary  to  require  the  applicant  to  obtain  a  certificate 
from  the  state  board  at  a  small  cost,  usually  from  one  to  two 
dollars,  even  if  he  has  an  accredited  diploma  or  has  passed  an 
examination.  In  some  states  this  certificate  is  required  to  be 
recorded  with  a  state  or  county  official,  which  necessitates  the 
payment  of  another  fee. 

For  the  better  regulation  of   some  of  these  professions,  espe- 

1  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  have  such  laws. 


Examination  Fees.  183 

cially  that  of  pharmacist,  annual  licenses  or  certificates  are  re- 
quired to  be  obtained,  or  annual  registrations  to  be  made,  at  a 
a  cost  of  one  or  two  dollars.1  Other  pursuits  for  which  some 
states  prescribe  state  examinations  are:  veterinary  surgeons, 
engineers,2  plumbers,  and  teachers.3  The  lack  of  teachers  in 
many  parts  of  the  country,  which  is  felt  even  at  present,  has 
made  any  charges  for  teachers'  examinations  inadvisable.  There 
is,  however,  a  tendency  in  a  few  states  to  charge  special  fees 
for  life  certificates;  and,  in  some  instances,  an  examination  fee 
of  one  or  two  dollars  is  charged  by  the  county  examiner  for  an- 
nual certificates. 

The  examinations  in  all  these  cases  are  usually  conducted  by 
an  examining  board,  and  the  fees  are  as  a  rule  required  to  be 
turned  into  a  fund  to  be  used  for  the  maintenance  of  this  board 
and  other  purposes.  In  cases  where  the  examination  is  con- 
ducted by  a  salaried  officer,  as,  for  example,  the  county  school 
superintendent,  the  fees  are  often  used  for  a  library,  or  institute 
fund,  or  some  other  similar  educational  purpose. 

The  general  drift  of  legislation  seems  to  be  to  increase  the 
number  of  pursuits  for  which  examinations  are  required  and  to 
raise  the  standard  of  requirements.  The  civil  service  examina- 
tions bring  up  an  entirely  distinct  category.  No  fees  have  as 
yet,  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  been  charged  for  the  privilege 
of  taking  these  examinations;  but  the  probability  is,  that  if 
they  go  on  increasing  in  importance,  a  small  fee  will  ultimately 
be  collected  from  each  candidate,  as  is  the  case  in  many  Euro- 
pean countries  at  present. 

1  Col.,  1893,  p.  368;  Conn.,  1893,  Ch.  298;  111.,  Minn.,  Neb.,  etc. 

2  Ala.,  Id.,  Mich.,  Mont.,  etc. 

3  Colorado  even  requires  an  examination  of  horseshoers. 

Many  cities  have  ordinances  prescribing  similar  tests  of  different  pro- 
fessions and  pursuits. 


184     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


CHAPTER  V. 


COURT  PEES.* 


Very  little  that  is  important  can  be  said  of  this  large  cate 
gory  of  fees  as  it  exists  today.  It  has  undergone  less  change 
than  any  other  part  of  the  fee  system;  hence  is  everywhere 
more  or  less  antiquated.  The  forces  which  have  tended  to  pre- 
vent change  will  be  discussed  in  another  chapter.  No  compar- 
ative study  of  this  subject  can  be  undertaken,  because  the  serv- 
ices furnished  for  each  fee-payment  rarely  mean  the  same  in 
any  two  states;  and  the  functions  of  the  various  judicial  officers 
are  widely  different  in  the  several  states. 

*  The  classification  given  is  neither  strictly  scientific  nor  absolutely  com- 
plete. Some  of  the  categories  overlap;  and  the  last  class,  especially,  in- 
cludes a  large  numbers  of  distinct  sub-classes,  whose  only  common  charac- 
teristic is,  that  they  are  collected  by  courts  or  semi-judicial  officials.  The 
justification  for  the  adoption  of  this  classification  lies  in  the  fact,  that  the 
statistical  and  other  materials  at  hand  lend  themselves  naturally  to  this 
grouping.  The  more  elaborate,  and,  in  one  sense,  more  scientific  classifi- 
cations of  Wagner,  Schall,  and  other  German  writers,  are  very  well  adapted 
to  a  purely  theoretic  study  and  discussion;  but  they  were  found,  after  re- 
peated trials,  to  be  absolutely  worthless  when  applied  to  actual  conditions 
such  as  exist  in  the  United  States.  Authentication  fees,  for  example,  are 
a  very  clear  and  easily  defined  group  of  fees,  in  theory;  while,  in  practice, 
it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  between  authentication  and  registration 
fees,  nor  can  a  comparative  study  of  such  a  class  be  successfully  undertaken . 
It  has  therefore  seemed  best  to  adopt  a  classification  which  appeared  most 
suited  to  an  exposition  of  the  conditions  and  relations  of  the  fees  in  the 
various  states  to  each  other.  In  order  to  make  this  classification  complete, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  add  two  more  classes,  on  which  sufficient  material 
was  not  available  for  a  more  elaborate  treatment.  These  two  classes  may 
be  designated  as  Educational  Fees  and  Industrial  Fees.  Under  the  first 
would  be  included  all  charges  made  by  public  educational  institutions  for 
tuition  and  other  general  expenses.  In  the  free  public  school  systems 
these  are  rarely  collected,  except  from  non-residents,  while  in  the  higher 
institutions  of  learning  they  are  quite  general.    The  second  class  includes 


Court  Fees.  185 


A.       REGISTRATION    FEES. 

Not  even  the  registration  fees  have  enough  elements  in  com 
mon  in  a  sufficient  number  of  states  to  make  any  comparison  give 
significant  results.1  Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  change 
the  system  of  registration  of  land  titles ; 2  but  the  interests  of 
lawyers,  and  many  other  forces  have,  as  a  rule,  been  arrayed 
against  such  reforms,  and  as  a  result  they  have  been  introduced 
in  but  few  localities.  The  Australian,  or  Torrens  system,  was 
adopted  in  the  city  of  Chicago  a  short  time  ago,  but  it  was  soon 
carried  into  the  courts  and  declared  unconstitutional.  It  is 
needless  to  state  that  enormous  sums  are  each  year  paid  out 
in  fees  for  registration,  a  great  part  of  which,  with  a  more 
modern  system,  might  be  saved  to  the  public.  Too  much  empha- 
sis cannot  be  laid  upon  the  necessity  of  adopting  more  simple 
and  modern  methods  of  registering  land  titles.  Most  of  the 
Western  and  Middle  states  could  as  yet  put  into  operation,  with- 
out much  difficulty,  systems  of  registration  which  would  be  the 
means  of  saving  millions  of  dollars  to  future  generations.  In 
the  more  densely  populated  Eastern  states  the  necessity  of  a 
new  system  is  beginning  to  be  felt;  but  the  change  can  be  ac- 
complished only  with  the  greatest  difficulty,  because  of  the  in- 
numerable vested  interests  based  on  the  old  systems  of  regis- 
tration. The  older  and  more  populous  a  country  grows,  the  more 
intricate  and  costly  does  the  tracing  of  land-titles  become,  and 
the  more  powerful  are  the  forces  arrayed  against  such  reforms. 
In  New  York  the  average  cost  of  obtaining  an  abstract  of  title 
of  real  estate  is  from  seventy-five  to  one  hundred  dollars;  while 

all  feesvcollected  by  public  bodies  for  the  services  of  institutions  which  are 
industrial  in  their  character.  The  post  office,  government  telegraph,  tele- 
phone, municipal  waterworks,  gas  works,  as  well  as  toll  roads  and  toll 
bridges  are  institutions  of  this  kind. 

1  The  registration  fee  in  one  state  is  part  of  a  license  fee  or  of  some  other 
fee,  while  in  a  different  state  it  is  distinct. 

2  The  original  fee  for  registration  is  often  the  smallest  part  of  the  fees 
paid  in  securing  title.  There  is,  as  a  rule,  an  abstract-office  fee,  attorney's 
fee  for  examining  title,  a  fee  for  certificate  from  register  of  deeds,  and 
often  many  others.  There  are  thus  many  people  whose  livelihood  depends 
on  the  continuance  of  the  old  fee  system. 


186     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

in  the  West  the  abstract  costs  comparatively  little.  These  fees 
may  in  the  end  become  so  burdensome  as  to  be  a  serious  impedi- 
ment to  the  purchase  of  land  by  the  humbler  classes  of  a  com- 
munity. 

Although  the  system  of  registration  is  slowly  expanding, 
comparatively  few  new  classes  of  objects  have  been  found,  which 
have  been  brought  under  this  provision.  In  the  ranching  dis- 
tricts the  recording  of  cattle-brands  is  of  great  importance, 
while  in  a  logging  district  the  recording  of  log-marks  seems  the 
most  important  from  the  recorder's  standpoint.  The  county 
recorders  and  registers  of  deeds  are  at  present  paid  by  means 
of  fees  in  most  of  the  states. 

B.   STATE  AND  COUNTY  COURT  FEES. 

Sheriffs,  constables,  clerks  of  court,  and  other  court  officers 
are,  as  a  rule,  remunerated  in  the  same  way.  In  the  older  states 
scarcely  any  changes  in  this  part  of  the  fee-system  have  been 
accomplished.  The  result  is,  that  many^of  the  court  officials  are 
receiving  fees  which  were  designed  for  conditions  existing  from 
fifty  to  one  hundred  years  ago.  Not  only  are  the  fees  entirely 
unsuited  in  amount  to  the  modern  conditions,  but  many  of  the 
primitive  forms  and  formulas  are  clung  to  with  great  tenacity. 
The  following  example  will  illustrate  this:  in  the  early  courts 
the  sheriff  was  usually  the  jailor,  court  messenger,  and  consta- 
ble; this  custom,  once  established,  has  been  continued  in  most 
of  the  older  states,  and  as  a  result  the  sheriffs  pocket  enormous 
amounts  of  fees  for  services  which  they  are  supposed  to  perform 
in  these  three  distinct  capacities. 

In  spite  of  the  numerous  and  heavy  fees  the  courts  tare  no 
where  self-supporting.  Not  even  those  courts  which  deal  ex- 
clusively with  civil  cases  and  have  all  their  docket- fees  and 
other  fees,  are  able  to  maintain  themselves  without  heavy  drafts 
upon  the  state  or  local  treasuries.  Reforms  to  remedy  this  have 
been  proposed,  now  in  one  state,  now  in  another,  but  the  legis- 
latures of  the  older  states  have  not  been  able  to  rectify  even  the 
most  glaring  inconsistencies.  The  only  states  that  have  at- 
tempted any  reform  or  solution  of  these  problems,  are  a  few 
Western    commonwealths,  which    are   less  hampered,   and  freer 


Court  Fees.  187 

from  the  influence  of  old  customs,  traditions,  and  institutions. 
These  have  succeeded  apparently  in  taking  some  decided  steps 
in  advance  of  any  Eastern  state. 

Colorado,  by  an  act  passed  in  1891, 1  divided  the  counties  of 
the  state  according  to  population  into  six  classes,  the  first  class 
containing  all  counties  having  a  population  of  over  50,000,  and 
the  sixth  class  all  those  of  less  than  3,000.  The  fees  of  all 
county  or  court  officers  were  graded  according  to  the  class  in 
which  the  county  happened  to  be.  It  was  further  provided  that 
all  county  officers  should  be  paid  salaries  fixed  by  law,  and  that 
all  fees  or  emoluments  of  office  of  every  kind  should  be  accounted 
for  and  paid  into  the  treasury.  Idaho  passed  an  act  in  1887 
based  on  a  somewhat  similar  scheme.  Here  the  counties  were 
divided  into  five  classes  according  to  the  assessed  valuation  of 
property  in  each,  the  lowest  being  $500,000,  and  the  highest 
$3, 250, 000. 2  A  maximum  and  minimum  salary  for  the  several 
county  officers  of  each  class  was  fixed  by  law;  and  provision  was 
made  that  the  fees  collected  by  each,  with  the  exception  of 
those  of  justices  of  the  peace,  should  be  accounted  for  and  paid 
into  the  county  treasury.  Montana  has  divided  the  counties 
into  eight  classes,  and  adopted  provisions  similar  to  those  al- 
ready mentioned.  Nevada  in  1885  fixed  by  law  the  salaries  of 
some  of  the  county  officers  and  provided  that  all  fees  should  be 
paid  into  the  county  treasury.  Arizona3  has  still  another  sys- 
tem. Here  the  counties  are  classified  according  to  the  number 
of  registered  voters  in  each.  Officers  in  those  counties  having 
less  than  seven  hundred  and  fifty  voters,  receive  fees  and  salary 
which  together  shall  not  amount  to  more  than  six  hundred 
dollars.  Counties  having  less  than  fifteen  hundred  voters  may 
remunerate  their  officers  by  means  of  fees  and  salaries;  while 
officers  of  counties  having  more  than  fifteen  hundred  voters  are, 
within  certain  maximum  limits,  to  be  allowed  the  fees  of  office 
only.  California  has  a  much  more  elaborate  system.  An  act 
passed  in  1891  divided  the  counties  of  the  state  into  fifty-three 
classes  based  on  population.     In  the  first  class  were  all  counties 

1  Laws,  1891,  p.  3U,  par.  22. 

2  Feb.  7,  1896,  Utah  provided  a  similar  system. 
3 1893,  p.  142. 


183     Urdahl — Tlie  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

of  over  four  hundred  thousand  inhabitants,  while  the  fifty-third 
class  contained  all  having  less  than  two  thousand.  The  salaries 
for  the  county  clerks,  sheriffs,  auditors,  recorders,  treasurers, 
tax-collectors,  assessors,  and  district  attorneys  were  fixed  for 
each  class,  and  provision  made  that  the  fees  collected  should  be 
paid  into  the  county  treasuries.  The  other  officers, —  coroners, 
justices  of  the  peace,  constables,  and  so  on,  are  allowed  to  re- 
ceive fees ;  but  it  is  required  that  an  account  be  kept,  and  any 
excess  over  the  maximum  allowed  must  be  paid  into  the  county 
treasury.1 

The  only  one  of  the  older  states  2  which  has  as  yet  attempted 
to  deal  with  this  question  in  this  way  is  Kentucky.3  A 
law,  passed  in  1895,  fixed  certain  maximum  amounts  which 
might  be  retained  as  salaries  by  the  county  officers;  and  pro- 
vided that  all  sums  received  above  such  amounts  should  be 
paid  into  the  treasuries,  and  heavy  penalties  were  prescribed 
for  false  reports  by  any  official.  An  attempt  was  made  a  year 
earlier  to  limit  the  amount  which  might  be  retained  by  city 
officials  out  of  the  fees  received.4 

It  would  appear  as  though  some  one  of  the  above  schemes,  if 
thoroughly  carried  out,  would  furnish  an  adequate  solution  of 
this  grave  problem.  One  thing,  however,  seems  certain;  and 
that  is,  that  the  experiments  which  these  Western  states  are 
carrying  on,  will  be  of  interest  and  value  to  every  state  in  the 
Union,  whatever  their  result  may  be.  The  problem  is  one  which 
-confronts  almost  every  locality,  although  the  abuses  are  more 
manifest  in  some  states  than  in  others.  Thoughtful  men  and 
wise  legislators  are  beginning  to  take   more  and  more  interest 

1  Supplement  to  the  Code  of  1893,  p.  375,  806. 

2  Pennyslvania  made  an  attempt  in  1810  to  limit  the  amount  which 
might  be  retained  as  salaries  by  registers  of  wills,  recorders  of  deeds,  pro- 
thonotaries  of  courts  of  oyer  and  terminer,  courts  of  quartersessions,  and 
orphans'  courts,  by  providing  that  an  account  of  all  fees  collected  by  each 
officer  should  be  given  to  the  Auditor  General;  and  that  fifty  per  cent,  of 
all  fees  collected  in  excess  over  $15,000  should  be  paid  into  the  state  treas- 
ury. The  attempt  was  a  failure  because  of  the  inefficiency  of  the  admin- 
istrative machinery. —  Laws,  1810,  §1. 

3 1895,  Ch.  47,  par.  1776. 
4 1895,  p.  1046,  par.  3065. 


Court  Fees.  189 

in  the  legislative  reforms  which  are  attempted,  not  only  within 
the  Union,  but  also  in  other  countries.  If  the  reforms  outlined 
above  should  at  all  meet  the  expectation  of  the  reformers,  it. 
will  only  be  a  question  of  time  until  the  movement  will  spread 
over  the  entire  West  and  even  overcome  the  inertia  and  conser- 
vatism of  many  Eastern  commonwealths.1  But  the  reform  is 
bound  to  come  in  course  of  time,  even  if  it  is  not  accomplished 
by  such  legislation  at  a  single  stroke.  It  requires  no  great 
power  of  observation  to  see  that  a  change  is  gradually  going  on 
in  everyone  of  the  states  in  the  Northwest.  One  official  after 
another  is  transferred  from  the  fee  to  the  salaried  list.  Scarcely 
a  session  of  a  legislature  closes  without  having  accomplished 
one  or  more  changes  in  this  respect. 

C.       FEDERAL    COURT  PEES. 

Scarcely  any  of  the  states  employing  the  fee  system  have  as 
yet  required  the  officers  to  give  any  strict  account  of  the  total 
amounts  received  as  fees.  Even  if  the  new  system  is  introduced,, 
it  becomes  next  to  impossible  to  obtain  any  figures  which  will 
show  in  dollars  and  cents  the  total  gain  or  loss  due  to  the  one 
system  or  the  other.  It  is  quite  different  with  the  Federal 
officials,  and  more  especialy  those  connected  with  the  Federal 
courts.  These  were  required  comparatively  early  to  give  a 
complete  account  of  every  fee  received.  We  have  thus  full  and 
reliable  statistics  of  the  amounts  collected  as  fees  in  the  various 
courts  for  a  long  series  of  years.  These  figures  show  that  the 
cost  of  maintaining  the  United  States  courts  has  for  a  number 
of  years  been  increasing  at  the  rate  of  over  a  million  dollars  a 
year.  On  May  28,  1896,  Congress  passed  an  act  which  changed 
most  of  the  officials  connected  with  the  Federal  courts  from  the 
fee  to  the  salary  system  of  compensation.  The  result  is,  that 
the  total  expenses  under  the  new  system  for  the  current  year 
1897,  according  to  the  estimates  made  by  the  Attorney  General, 

1  It  may  be  of  interest  to  note  that  the  original  drafts  of  two  of  these 
laws  were  not  made  in  the  West  by  any  "  sage  bush  "  legislators,  but  are 
the  product  of  the  best  legal  talent  of  the  East.  The  statute  of  one  state 
is  taken  from  a  revised  code  which  was  laid  before  the  New  York  legisla- 
ture; and  after  being  rejected  by  that  body,  it  was  taken  up  and  passed  in 
the  West. 


190     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

based  on  the  returns  for  the  first  six  months,  will  be  $4,861,465, 
as  compared  with  $6,675,239  for  1896,  which  was  the  cost  un- 
der the  fee-system.  This  shows  a  total  saving  of  $1,813,774  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  volume  of  business  is  on  the  increase. 
The  specific  items  in  which  this  reduction  is  made  as  given  in 
the  report  of  the  attorney  general  are  as  follows: 

Salaries  and  expenses  of  marshals $2, 995, 541  50 

Expenses  for  bailiffs 94, 920  40 

Expenses  for  jurors . 215, 306  09 

Expenses  for  district  attorneys 192, 042  81 

In  miscellaneous  expenses  there  is  an  increase  of  $2,646  over 
the  preceding  year.  One  item  which  most  forcibly  illustrates 
the  extravagance  of  the  fee  system,  is  the  mileage  of  United 
States  attorneys  and  their  assistants,  which  amounted  to  $93,908 
for  the  fiscal  year  1896,  while  according  to  the  estimates  the 
maximum  expense  under  the  new  system  will  not  exceed  $6,000. 
These  figures  illustrate,  better  than  volumes  of  discussion,  the 
economic  advantages  of  the  new  system,  and  the  wastefulness 
of  the  old  method  of  remuneration. 

But  the  diminution  of  the  sums  paid  to  public  officials  as  sal- 
aries and  for  other  purposes,  represents  by  no  means  all  the  gain 
which  accrues  to  the  public  from  this  change.  The  attorney 
general  puts  this  very  admirably  when  he  says:  — 

In  districts  where  the  "  abuses  of  the  fee  system  have  flour- 
ished without  interruption  for  a  generation,  fewer  persons  are 
called  from  their  daily  pursuits;  private  business  suffers  less 
interruption;  is  less  frequently  disturbed  by  groundless  prose- 
cutions and  dread  of  them;  the  number  of  persons  who  as  in- 
formers, professional  witnesses,  and  the  like,  seek  to  gain  a 
livelihood  by  methods  which  often  cause,  and  always  threaten, 
the  prostitution  of  judicial  proceedings,  is  largely  diminished 
and  the  general  morale  has  been  raised.  There  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  there  has  been  and  will  be  no  failure  to  promptly 
and  effectively  enforce  the  laws. " 

The  salary  system  is  not  as  yet  extended  to  deputy  field  mar- 
shals, as  their  services  are  only  required  intermittently;  nor 
are  the  clerks  of  court  brought  under  this  requirement,  but  it 
is  probable  that  they  will  be  in  the  near  future. 

This  result  of  the  application  of  the  new  system  to  the  Fed- 


Revenue  from  Fees.  191 

eral  courts,  gives  a  suggestion  of  what  might  be  accomplished 
in  the  state  and  local  courts,  especially  if  it  is  borne  in  mind 
that  the  business  of  the  Federal  courts  is  insignificant,  when 
compared  with  the  aggregate  business  of  all  other  courts. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


REVENUE  FROM  FEES.1 

A.       FEDERAL    GOVERNMENT. 

Federal  fees  are  the  only  ones  of  which  anything  like  com- 
plete accounts  are  kept,  and  even  here  the  reports  are  not  de- 
tailed enough  to  make  an  exhaustive  treatment  possible.  A 
special  report  made  by  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  to  Con- 
gress, stating  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  Federal  gov- 
ernment for  the  year  1882,  is  the  basis  of  the  following  table, 
which  contains  the  aggregate  of  all  the  fees,  excluding  postal 
fees,  collected  by  Federal  officials  for  that  year: 

Consular  fees $613, 422  22 

Steamboat  fees 279,889  36 

Registers'  and  receivers'  fees 1, 107, 671  61 

Marine  hospitals 406, 103  59 

Weighing  fee3 48,638  17 

Customs  officers 480, 728  69 

Emoluments  (customs) 368, 822  74 

Emoluments  (judiciary) 25, 315  39 

Patent  office  fees 917,897  14 

Passports 20, 115  00 

Copying  (general  land  office) 8, 247  90 

Copyright  fees 15, 753  04 

National  health  laws 1,647  68 

Total 2$4, 564, 390  85 

1  The  statistics  on  which  this  chapter  is  based  cannot  be  considered  ab  - 
solutely  accurate;  but  they  are  accurate  enough  to  show  the  general  results 
indicated.  Many  of  the  receipts  classed  in  some  tables  as  fees  should,  no 
doubt,  were  all  the  particulars  known,  be  classed  as  taxes;  while  others  at 
present  considered  taxes,  should  have  been  included  in  the  fee  tables. 

2  [The  sum  of  the  amounts  given  is  $4,294,252.53.— Editor.] 


192     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

The  total  is  important  in  that  it  shows  the  significance  of 
the  subject  of  the  fee-system  as  a  source  of  revenue.  Without 
the  fee-system  this  sum  would  have  to  be  raised  by  taxation  or 
in  some  other  way.  This  four  and  a  half  million  dollars  repre- 
sents the  amount  which  is  annually  collected  for  the  numerous 
little  services  performed  by  Federal  officials  throughout  the 
land.  The  true  significance  of  the  Federal  fee-system  will  be 
more  adequately  represented,  when  the  receipts  of  the  Post 
Office,  which  in  essence  are  pure  fees,  are  added  to  the  above 
miscellaneous  fees,  making  a  total  of  nearly  eighty  millions  a 
year;  while  the  revenues  of  the  United  States  from  all  sources 
was  $372, 802, 498. 29. J 

The  revenues  from  fees  vary  with  the  general  prosperity  of 
the  country.  There  may  be,  and  usually  is,  a  gradual  increase 
in  the  total  from  year  to  year,  although  there  is  at  times 
a  diminution  of  several  thousand  dollars  from  some  particular 
source.  In  1891  the  consular  fees  had  increased  to  $782,619, 
while  the  registers'  and  receivers'  fees  had  decreased  $931,907. 
The  consular  fees  in  1895  amounted  to  $938, 765, 2  an  increase  of 
over  $150,000  in  five  years.  The  Patent  Office  fees  vary  quite 
extensively,  owing  to  differences  in  industrial  and  inventive  ac- 
tivity of  the  community. 

B.       REVENUES  FROM  FEES  IN  THE   STATES. 

In  most  of  the  states  the  amounts  which  are  accounted  for  as 
fees,  are  surprisingly  small.  There  are,  in  the  first  place,  a 
large  number  of  states  whose  receipts  from  fees  include  only  the 
ordinary  office  receipts  of  their  state  officers,  the  total  amount 
of  which  constitutes  but  a  very  small  per  cent,  of  the  total 
state  revenues.  Among  the  members  of  this  class  may  be  men- 
tioned the  following:  North  Carolina  received  $13,715  in  fees 
from  all  sources,  and  of  this  amount  $13,192  were  the  receipts 
of  the  secretary  of  state's  office.  Arkansas  collected  $26,466 
from  all  sources,  of  which  over  $18,000  was  from  the  secretary  of 

1  Report  Sec.  of  Treas.,  1895,  p.  15.  For  the  fiscal  year  1896  the  total 
fees  amounted  to  over  $86,000,000,  while  the  total  revenue  from  all  sources 
was  $409, 000, 000. 

3  Report  of  Sec.  of  Treas.,  1895,  p.  701. 


Revenue  from  Fees.  193 

state's  office,  and  over  $8,000  from  the  insurance  commissioner's 
oftice.1  Kansas  credits  $13,646  to  fees,  of  which  the  bank  com- 
missioner collects  $6,458,  the  oil  inspector  $4,500,  and  the  sec- 
retary of  state  $1,676.2  Alabama  receives  $29,003  from  her  fee 
system;  but  of  this  amount  $22,602  is  obtained  from  solicitor's 
fees,  and  $861  from  oyster  licenses;  the  remainder  is  collected 
by  the  state  officers.3 

But  there  are  a  few  states  that  receive  considerable  revenue 
from  the  fees  which  are  accounted  for  by  the  state  officers. 
Among  these  may  be  mentioned  Illinois,  where  $525,872  was 
last  year  credited  to  fees,  of  which  $195,135  came  from  the  sec- 
retary of  state's  office  and  $328,475  were  collected  by  the  super- 
intendent of  insurance.4  Missouri  also  received  the  not  incon- 
siderable sum  of  $192,485  from  fees;  $109,294  of  this  was  col- 
lected from  foreign  insurance  companies,  and  $76,510  by  incor- 
poration fees.5  Wyoming,  whose  total  state  revenue  only 
equals  $410, 990,  receives  $8, 1 00  from  fees  of  state  officers.  Of  this 
amount  $4,400  is  from  foreign  insurance  fees,  and  $1,000  from  the 
fees  of  the  secretary  of  state.  Colorado  obtains  $150,000  from 
her  insurance  department,  and  $40,000  from  the  secretary  of 
state's  office.6  The  little  state  of  New  Jersey  receives  nearly 
$83,000  from  incorporation  fees.7  This  large  sum  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that  incorporation  is  here  made  easy;  and  com- 
panies from  all  parts  of  the  Union  come  here  to  obtain  their 
charters,  for  exactly  the  same  reason  that  the  number  of  divorce 
cases  in  South  Dakota  has  been  out  of  all  proportion  to  the 
population  of  that  state. 

There  are  several  states  whose  revenues  include  fees  derived 
from  various  other  sources  besides  those  mentioned,  the  most 
general  of  which  are  the  receipts  from  state  supreme  and  inferior 
courts.     New  Jersey  receives  $22,815  from  the  clerks  in   chan- 

1  Report  of  Auditor,  Ark.,  1896,  p.  22. 

2  Report  of  Treasurer,  1896,  p.  8. 

3  Report  of  Auditor,  1896,  p.  59.  Building  and  Loan  Associations,  $3,800; 
Secretary  of  State,  fees,  $915;  Attorney  General,  $73;  State  Auditor,  $751. 

4  Report  of  Treasurer,  1896,  p.  7. 
'  Report  of  Auditor,  1896,  p.  5. 

•  Report  of  Auditor,  1896,  p.  14. 
7  Report  of  Comptroller,  1896,  p.  17. 
13 


194     Urdahl — Tlie  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

eery ; l  Nevada  obtains  over  $1,000  from  her  supreme  court  fees; 2 
Utah  collects  over  $10,000  from  the  fees  of  her  clerks  of  court;3 
and  a  few  other  states  show  small  sums  derived  from  this 
source.  Among  other  miscellaneous  sources  of  state  fees,  it 
may  be  worthy  of  notice  that  Connecticut  obtains  $10,000  from 
her  shell  fisheries.4  Minnesota  obtains  $135,000  from  grain  in- 
spection fees ; 5  and  many  other  states  obtain  revenues  from  other 
sources,  the  amounts  of  which  are  too  small  to  be  of  any  ac- 
count. 

The  states,  however,  that  show  the  largest  receipts  from  fees, 
are  invariably  the  ones  that  have  the  most  elaborate  system  of 
licenses.  Maine6  receives  $83,084  from  fees  of  all  kinds,  while 
her  total  state  revenues   amount  to  $1,576,382.     North  Dakota 

1  Beport  of  Comptroller,  1896,  p.  17. 

2  Report  of  Comptroller,  1896,  p.  16. 

3  Report  of  Auditor,  1896,  p.  22. 

4 Report  of  Comptroller,  Conn.,  1896,  p.  77. 

Com'r  of  pharmacy $1, 973  25 

Com'r  of  shell  fisheries 10, 136  25 

Executive  sec 535  50 

Insurance  com'r , 68, 334  79 

Secof  state 2,147  35 

Incorporations 1,500  00 

Total  recepts $84,627  14 

»  Report  of  Auditor,  1896,  p.  66. 

Insurance  fees $16,462  00 

Secof  state 1,543  85 

Dairy  com'r 1,500  00 

Public  examiners 500  00 

Game  and  fish  com'r 1,639  30 

State  bank  fees 2,265  00 

Warehouse 110  00 

Grain  inspection 135, 700  00 

Candidates  for  state  offices 1,650  00 

Total. $161,370  15 

•  Report  of  Treasurer,  1896,  pp.  10  and  11. 

Private  detectives'  fees $150  00 

Hawkers  and  peddlers 4,300  00 

Itinerant  vendors 100  00 

Dog  licenses 29, 494  85 

Incorporations 642  00 

Increase  of  capital  stock 23,595  00 

Railroad  com'r 9, 880  09 

Sec.  of  state,  fees 2,260  84 

Insurance  com'r 11,143  00 

Medical  board,  registration 1,518  00 

Total $83,083  78 


Revenue  from  Fees.  195 

obtains  over  $15,000  from  elevator  licenses.1  Leaving  out  of 
consideration  the  Southern  states,  whose  licenses  are,  partially 
at  least,  in  the  nature  of  business  taxes,  we  find  a  number  of 
commonwealths  which  seem  to  employ  licenses  partly  as  regu- 
lative measures  and  partly  for  revenue,  and  thus  obtain  a  very 
large  percentage  of  their  revenues  from  this  source.  Mary- 
land2 received  $1,118,972  from  license  charges  and  other  fees, 
as  compared  with  her  total  revenue  of  $3,156,876.  Pennsyl- 
vania nominally  receives  all  her  state  revenue  from  these  sources, 
but  in  reality  many  of  the  so-called  licenses  are  taxes  levied 
under  the  form  of  license  charges.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  railroad  licenses  in  Wisconsin  and  other  states.   The  amount 


1  Report  of  Auditor,  N.  D.,  1896,  p.  3. 

Com'r  of  ins $33,683  40 

Sec.  of  state 5,682  46 

Incorporations 2,930  00 

Com'r  of  agr 3  20 

State  examiner 2, 450  00 

Clerk  of  supreme  court 1, 388  25 

Vet.  examining  board 475  00 

Dist.  veterinarian 125  25 

Elevator  licenses 1, 535  00 

New  land  contracts 65  00 

Total. $27,779  56 

[The  sum  of  the  amounts  given  is  $48,337.56. —  Editor.] 

^Report  of  Comp.  of  Treas.,  1896,  p.  2. 

Bonus  on  corporations $6,439  80 

Excess  of  fees  of  office ;.  ■  50,01190 

Franchise  tax !.  29,53658 

Auctioneers 3,887  75 

Billiard  tables 10,375  98 

Brokers 12,312  53 

Cigarettes   12,780  37 

Exhibitions 2,482  76 

Fishery 12215 

Hawkers  and  peddlers 4,333  29 

Ins.  companies 130,865  11 

Ordinary 11,52639 

Oyster  house 31,56112 

Oyster  measures 1, 227  60 

Oyster  canners  and  packers 5, 649  86 

Traders    194,60442 

Traders  in  liquor 9,093  62 

Dredges  for  oysters 25,284  33 

To  sell  commercial  fertilizers 18,295  00 

Tongs  and  scrapers 13, 510  00 

Highliquor  licenses  (Bait.) 530,57539 

State  hay  scales 756  23 

State  tobacco  inspection 8,685  27 

State  warehouses 5,179  43 

Total $1,118,927  40 


196     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

accounted  for  as  peddlers'  license  fees,  is  surprisingly  small; 
but  it  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  laws  are  evaded, 
and  that  the  state  authorities,  as  a  rule,  are  unable  to  enforce 
them. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  state  income  from  fees  is, 
as  a  rule,  but  a  very  small  part  of  the  total  state  revenue; 
although  a  few  states,  like  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  succeed 
in  getting  a  large  percentage  of  their  income  from  them. 

C.       MUNICIPAL  RECEIPTS  FROM  FEES. 

The  increasing  importance  of  the  fee-system  from  a  revenue 
standpoint,  is  best  illustrated  by  a  study  of  the  officers'  reports 
of  the  various  cities  of  the  country.  The  reports  for  1896,  from 
cities  with  a  population  of  over  75,000,  show  a  great  variety  in 
total  receipts  from  fees,  and  more  especially  in  the  particular 
sources  from  which  the  fees  are  derived. 

Savannah,  Ga.,  obtained  $83,273  from  municipal  fees  and 
licenses,  $51,000  of  which  was  liquor  license  charges,  and 
$15,904  were  payments  for  market  privileges.1  Salt  Lake  City, 
Utah,  credits  $116,419  to  license  fees,  most  of  which  is  paid 
for  liquor  licenses.2  Duluth.  Minn.,  derives  $130,373  from  fee 
payments,  of  which  $16,000  are  municipal  court  fees  and 
$113,834  from  licenses,  largely  to  sell  liquor.3  Paterson,  N.  J., 
receives  $154,308  from  fees,  while  the  total  municipal  revenues 
from  all  sources  are  $3,245,475.  The  main  sources  of  fees  are 
liquor  licenses,  which  yield  $138,655;  other  licenses  $5,795; 
registry  of  dogs,  $5,162;  court-recorder's  fees,  $3,036;  and 
miscellaneous  fees.4  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  derives  $309,000  from 
liquor  licenses,  $7,050  from  theater  licenses,  and  less  amounts 
from  hack  and  cab  drivers,  peddlers,  express  companies,  build- 
ing inspection,  markets,  pawnbrokers,  city  railroads,  and  so 
on,  making  a  total  of  $338, 347. 5     Minneapolis  obtains  $289,000> 


1  Municipal  Report,  1896,  p.  57. 

2  Report,  1895,  p.  42. 

8 Report  of  Compt.,  Duluth,  1896,  p.  27. 

4  Annual  Report,  1896,  p.  12. 

6  City  Report,  St.  Paul,  1895,  p.  32. 


Eevenue  from  Fees.  197 

from  her  liquor  licenses,  $48,646  from  fees  and  fines,  which 
together  with  fees  from  miscellaneous  sources  make  a  total  of 
$353,874,  as  compared  with  the  total  municipal  receipts  from 
all  sources  of  $1,029, 525. « 

The  larger  the  city  and  the  denser  the  population,  the  more 
important  do  the  sums  total  derived  from  fees  become,  as  com- 
pared with  the  general  receipts.  In  the  great  cities  the  revenue 
from  fees  constitute  about  ten  per  cent,  of  the  total  income 
from  all  sources.  In  St.  Louis2  the  fees  amounted  to  $2,168,365, 
while  the  general  receipts  were  $12,041,402.  The  fee  payments 
of  all  kinds  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia3  for  the  year  1896 
amounted  to  almost  four  million  dollars,  while  the  total  munic- 
ipal  receipts   were  about  thirty-one  and  one-half  million  dollars. 

1  Annual  Reports,  Minneapolis,  1896,  p.  34. 

2  Fees  accounted  for  in  the  Comptroller's  Report  of  St.  Louis  for  1896, 
p.  5. 

Wharfage $65,283  53 

Boiler  and  elevator  inspection 13, 953  00 

Building  permits 9,862  00 

Street  railroad  franchises 74,152  15 

Commissioner's  fees 157, 169  15 

Recorder  of  deeds 54,06110 

Scales 10,656  35 

Licenses 1,367,755  53 

Inspector  of  fertilizers 17, 699  92 

Fees  of  office 3,613  55 

Fees  for  oil  inspection 14, 525  51 

Insurance  foes 536  80 

Total  (not  including  occupation  taxes  on  licenses) $2, 168, 365  06 

[The  total  sum  of  the  amounts  given  is  a  little  over  $1,788,000. — Ed.] 

3  Philadelphia  Compt.  Report,  1896,  p.  21. 

Boiler  inspection $20, 301  50 

Building  inspector 36, 235  31 

Search  fees  from  tax  office 6, 508  60 

City  solicitors 247,537  22 

Port  warden 703  00 

Prothonotary 54,535  61 

Recorders 105,243  25 

Register  of  wills 92,900  10 

Sheriffs 65,998  47 

Clerk  of  Quarter  Sessions 39,384  11 

Bureau  of  highways 168,510  07 

Surveys 181,398  49 

Waters 2,835,326  74 

Total $3,909,030  08 

[The  sum  of  the  amounts  given  is  a  little  over  $3,852,000. — Ed.] 


198     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

The  ratio  is  about  the  same  in  the  other  large  cities.1 
The  relative  amounts  which  are  derived  from  the  various  sources 
vary  in  the  different  cities  according  to  the  climate,  location, 
and  other  peculiarities  of  each,  also  according  to  the  wisdom  and 
foresight  exercised  by  their  respective  municipal  and  legislative 
bodies.  St.  Louis  received  in  1896  nearly  $75,000  for  street 
railway  franchises,  while  Philadelphia  with  a  much  more  valua- 
ble system  did  not  receive  a  dollar  from  this  source  except  by 
way  of  taxation.  Philadelphia,  on  the  other  hand,  receives 
large  sums  each  year  from  the  fees  collected  by  prothonotaries 
and  other  court  officers.  Chicago,  New  York,  and  other  cities 
derive  comparatively  little  revenue  from  this  source.  The  ten- 
dency has  been  prevalent  in  some  of  the  corrupt  city  councils  to 
grant  away  valuable  franchises  and  other  privileges,  which  other- 
wise would  have  yielded   annual  sums  into  the   treasury. 

Indeed,  many  of  the  legislative  bodies  in  our  large  cities  exercise 
almost  as  important  and  far-reaching  powers  in  this  respect  as 
the  absolute  monarchs  of  the  seventeenth  century.  History  fur- 
nishes numerous  examples  of  commercial  monopolies  and  other 
exclusive  privileges,  granted  as  trifling  tokens  of  royal  favor  to 
some  favorite  courtier,  which  when  exploited  were  found  to 
yield  fabulous  sums.  So  it  is  with  many  municipal  bodies.  A 
little,  harmless-looking  ordinance  is  introduced  involving  fees 
which  are  apparently  insignificant;  and  a  few  years  later  it 
may  be  discovered  that  the  fees  provided  for  yield  annually  a 
small  fortune  to  some  official.2 

1  Fees  of  the  city  of  Chicago: 

Amusements $21, 434  10 

Dog  licenses 84,480  00 

Pawnbrokers 18,750  00 

Wholesale  liquors 28,693  00 

Wholesale  malt  dealers  licenses 33, 985  09 

Saloons 2,991,965  34 

Street  car  companies 68,841  00 

Building  permits 43, 902  95 

Certificates  of  inspection 14, 636  00 

Insurance 22,767  67 

Poundage 1,008  00 

Total $3,627,930  47 

[The  sum  of  the  amounts  given  is  a  little  over  $3,329,000.— Ed.] 

2  Chicago  Times-Herald,  Jan.  27,  1897,  p.  1.  In  the  spring  of  1896  the 
city  council  of  Chicago  passed  an  ordinance  which  required  all  peddlers  to 


Revenue  from  Fees  199 

The  amounts  collected  as  fees  in  the  great  cities,  seem  to  be 
enormous  when  taken  by  themselves,  but  they  are  by  no  means 
as  large  as  they  might  be  under  more  efficient  and  economical 
administration  of  municipal  affairs.  The  municipal  machinery 
is  as  yet  very  crude  and  undeveloped.  As  a  result  the  amount 
of  waste  is  very  great.  Very  many  of  the  small  fees  which  are 
collected  here  and  there,  may  be  compared  to  the  by-products 
of  a  great  factory.  Utilization  of  these  by-products,  and  new 
economies  are  the  things  which  can  increase  the  output.  Just 
so  with  our  municipal  establishments.  Taxes  are  already  so 
high  that  the  income  from  that  source  can  not  be  increased  very 
materially  with  the  present  system;  but  the  receipts  may  be 
augmented  quite  perceptibly  by  getting  into  the  treasury  all 
the  fees  which  are  collected  for  every  privilege  or  service  what- 
ever. 

D.       GENERAL    TREND    OF    THE    FEE    LEGISLATION. 

The  most  general  and  far-reaching  tendencies  which  can  be 
said  to  exist,  are  in  two  directions.  There  is  one  class  of  fees 
which  tend  everywhere  to  disappear,  or  at  least  to  diminish  in 
size.  This  class  includes  all  payments  for  actual  services  or 
goods  furnished  by  public  authority.  Good  examples  are  the 
following:  the  Post  Office;  the  public  schools;  all  kinds  of  cler- 
ical services;  the  use  of  highways,  which  originally  and  in  a 
few  places  even  now,  are  paid  for  by  means  of  tolls ;  water  sup- 
ply in  large  cities;  gas  and  electricity  when  furnished  by  mu- 
nicipalities. In  short,  wherever  the  government  attempts  to 
furnish  a  service  which  could  be  furnished  by  private  initiative, 
the  tendency  soon  becomes  manifest  to  reduce  the  fee  below  the 
cost  of  the  service,  often  even  to  such  an  extent  that  it  becomes 
a  free  good. 

There  is,  however,  another  large  category  of  fees  which  may 
be  said  to  be  on  the  increase  in  amount.  These  include  most  of 
the  license  fees.  We  have  seen  in  the  foregoing  how  each  one 
has,  as  a  rule,  originated  in  a  simple   recorder's  fee,  and  grad- 

buy  a  tag  from  the  city  clerk  for  fifty  cents,  which  was  required  to  be  at- 
tached to  their  wagons.  The  estimated  annual  profit  to  the  clerk  from 
this  source  was  $8,000. 


200     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

ually  increased  until  some  of  them  became  real  taxes.  The  num- 
erous incorporation  fees  would  belong  to  this  class.  A  very- 
little  investigation  will  show  that  they  are  on  the  increase. 
Here  also  the  numerous  inheritance  taxes  belong;.  They  cer- 
tainly originated  in  probate  fees,  and  may,  if  moderate  in 
amount,  be  placed  even  now  in  this  category. 

There  is,  furthermore,  a  tendency  to  extend  the  scope  of  the 
fee  system.  With  every  extension  of  the  functions  of  govern- 
ment new  direct  services  to  individuals  become  possible,  and 
new  fees  are  collected  therefor.  Each  recurring  cycle  of  years 
sees  the  development  of  new  fees  and  the  disappearance  of  the 
old. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
LEGAL  ASPECT  OF  FEES. 

A.    EVOLUTION   OF    FEES    AS    INTERPRETED    BY  THE   COURTS. 

The  courts  have  not  succeeded  in  establishing  any  definite 
and  sharply  defined  category  under  the  heading  of  fees  as  dis- 
tinguished from  other  public  revenues.  This  becomes  perfectly 
evident  when  we  turn  to  the  various  law  dictionaries  and  ascer- 
tain that  no  definition  or  explanation  of  the  term  can  be  found. 
Eminent  legists  and  text-book  writers,  such  as  Judge  Cooley, 
Mr.  Desty,  and  Mr.  Hilliard,  seem  to  ignore  entirely  the  sub- 
ject as  a  whole  and  confine  their  attention  to  license  and  inspec- 
tion fees,  which  are  but  a  small  part  of  the  subjects  included 
under  the  more  general  term.  Not  even  on  the  subject  of  license 
fees  have  the  courts  succeeded  in  evolving  any  definite  body  of 
law.  Conflicting  decisions  can  be  found  in  the  various  state 
courts,  due  doubtless  to  the  wide  divergence  in  the  constitu- 
tional limitations  of  various  states  and  public  bodies. 

On  the  strength  of  some  of  these  decisions  the  American  legal 
writers  have  formulated  definitions  and  accepted  certain  princi- 


Legal  Aspect  of  Fees.  201 

pies  in  regard  to  licenses  and  license  fees.  Judge  Cooley  de- 
fines a  license  as  "  a  privilege  granted  by  the  state,  usually  on 
payment  of  a  valuable  consideration.  To  constitute  a  privilege 
the  grant  must  confer  something  which,  without  it,  would  be 
illegal.  A  fee  is  in  the  nature  of  a  sale  of  a  benefit,  or  privi- 
lege, to  a  party  which  would  not  otherwise  be  entitled  to  the 
same."1  Mr.  Desty  says  that  "a  license  is  not  a  tax,  but  a 
privilege  granted  to  carry  on  some  occupation  or  exercise  some 
right  which  could  not  be  legally  exercised  without  the  grant  of 
such  license.2  .  .  .  The  license  fee  is  not  limited  to  the 
mere  cost  of  issuance;  it  may  be  sufficiently  high  to  produce  a 
fund  to  enforce  regulations  adopted  to  restrain  the  improper 
exercise  of  the  pursuit.  " 

Neither  of  the  above  mentioned  writers  lay  any  stress  on  the 
distinction  between  license  fees  and  license  taxes,  but  regard 
both  as  essentially  in  the  nature  of  a  tax.  This  is  shown  by 
Judge  Cooley's  statement,  that  license  fees  may  be  imposed  for 
four  different  purposes:  (1)  for  regulation,  (2)  for  revenue,  (3) 
to  give  monopolies,  and  (4)  for  prohibition.  But  he  affirms 
that  the  only  legitimate  purpose  for  which  fees  should  be  levied, 
are  for  regulation  and  revenue.  This  distinction  from  a  legal 
point  of  view,  between  license  fees  levied  for  regulation,  and 
the  so-called  fees  for  revenue,  was  recognized  very  early  in  the 
history  of  the  country.  The  idea  has  been  further  elaborated 
by  many  courts  that  license  fees  whose  purpose  was  regulation, 
were  levied  by  the  police  power,  while  fees  for  revenue  were  im- 
posed by  the  taxing  power.  But  the  term  regulation  is  a  very 
broad  one,  and  can  be  made  to  include  almost  every  exercise  of 
sovereignty;  or  it  may  be  interpreted  so  as  to  embrace  only  a 
few  subjects,  according  as  the  interpreting  body  takes  the  lib- 
eral or  conservative  standpoint.  As  a  result,  we  find  that  the 
decisions  vary  and  conflict  with  each  other,  not  only  in  the 
courts  of  different  states,  but  even  within  the  same  state  in  dif- 
ferent periods  of  time. 

Courts  are,  from  the  standpoint  of  history  and  political  science, 
not  only  interpreters  of  constitutions  and  laws,  but  of  economic 

1  Cooley,  Law  of  Taxation,  p.  512. 

2  Desty,  Taxation,  pp.  1385  and  1380. 


202     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

conditions.  They  are  influenced  by  the  ideas  and  ideals  of  the 
times,  and  unconsciously,  at  times  even  consciously,  adjust  and 
modify  constitutions  and  laws  so  as  to  fit  the  economic  condi- 
tions which  present  themselves.  We  thus  find  a  long  list  of 
cases  where  the  imposition  and  collection  of  license  fees,  were 
adjudged  to  be  an  exercise  of  the  police  power,  although  it  was 
clearly  shown  in  many  of  them,  that  the  fee  yielded  a  surplus 
revenue  to  the  public  body.1  In  New  York  vs.  Leonard,2  the 
court  held  that  the  imposition  of  a  license  charge  of  $50  per 
car  for  the  privilege  of  running  on  the  streets  of  New  York, 
was  an  annual  tax  and  not  a  license  fee;  while  the  parallel  case 
of  Johnson  vs.  Philadelphia,*  was  decided  contrary  to  the  former 
decision,  the  court  holding  that  $50  per  year  per  car  was  a  legiti- 
mate license  charge.  The  court  here  stated  "  that  if  it  be  granted 
that  the  sum  is  a  reasonable  charge  as  a  police  regulation,  then 
its  incidental  operation  in  augmenting  the  receipts  of  the  city 
treasury,  cannot  invalidate  it. "  The  trend  of  the  earlier  de- 
cisions *  seems  to  be  that  the  distinction  between  fees  and  taxes 
corresponds  to  the  distinction  between  police  powers  and  taxing 
powers. 

The  dividing  line  between  these  two  powers  has  never  been 
definitely  fixed.     Even  the  United   States  Supreme  Court5  has 

1  People  vs.  Thurber,  13  III.,  554;  Walker  vs.  Springfield,  94  111., 
364;  Burch  vs.  Savannah,  42  Ga.,  596;  Durach's  Appeal,  52  Pa.,  392;. 
East  St.  Louis  vs.  Trustees,  99  111.,  583;  Rochester  vs.  Upman,  19  Minn. , 
312;  State  vs.  Carridy,  22  Minn.,  322;  Johnson  vs.  Phila.,  60  Pa.,  445; 
Fire  Dept.  vs.  Helfenstein,  16  Wis.,  136;  Cine.  Gas  Co.  vs.  State,  18 
Ohio,  237;  Boston  vs.  Sehaffer,  9  Pick.,  415;  Welseh  vs.  Hotchkiss,  3£ 
Conn.,  140. 

232N.  Y.,  261. 

360Penn.  Stat,  451. 

4  Tenney  vs.  Lentz,  16  Wis.,  566;  License  Cases,  5  How.,  504;  Keller 
vs.  State,  11  Ind.,  525;  Commonwealth  vs.  Kimball,  24  Pick.,  359;  Gib- 
bons vs.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.,  23;  Mar  met  vs.  Ohio,  12  N.  E.  Rep.,  472, 
etc. 

6  New  York  vs.  Milwaukee,  11  Pet.,  102.  "Every  law  comes  within 
the  police  power  which  concerns  the  welfare  of  the  whole  people  of  the 
state  or  any  individual  within  it,  whether  it  relates  to  their  rights  or  their 
duties,  whether  it  relate  to  them  as  men  or  as  citizens  of  a  state,  whether  in 
their  public  or  private  relations,  whether  it  relates  to  the  fight  of  persons  or 


Legal  Aspect  of  Fees.  203 

long  defined  the  police  power  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  co- 
extensive with  the  whole  internal  government  of  a  state.  But 
later  decisions  have  limited  the  scope  of  this  power  in  one 
direction,  and  extended  it  in  another.  In  the  case  of  Barbie  vs. 
Connolly1  the  Supreme  Court  has  so  far  narrowed  the  conception 
as  to  place  the  development  and  administration  of  common  law 
outside  of  its  realm ;  and  writers  on  political  science  have,  in 
theory  at  least,  gone  further  and  limited  the  conception  still 
more.  Although  the  general  nature  of  the  power  has  been  de- 
fined, still  the  outlines  are  left  very  vague  and  undetermined. 
Even  if  the  early  view  be  accepted,  that  a  license  charge  which 
yields  revenue  is  a  tax  and  an  exercise  of  the  taxing  power, 
while  a  charge  which  will  cover  only  the  necessary  expenses  of 
issuance,  and  the  additional  labor  of  officers  thereby  imposed, 
is  an  exercise  of  the  police  power,  still,  even  this  apparently 
simple  and  clear  distinction  would  leave  a  large  field  within 
which  courts  and  legislators  might  exercise  their  discretion. 
In  Judge  Cooley's  words2:  "The  courts  will  not  inquire  very 
closely  into  the  expense  of  a  license,  with  a  view  to  adjudge  it 
a  tax,  where  it  does  not  appear  to  be  unreasonable  in  amount 
in  view  of  its  purpose  as  regulation." 

The  various  courts  are  therefore  compelled  to  find  other  justi- 
fications for  fees  than  the  mere  fact  that  they  are  levied  under 
the  police  power.  Charges  are  found  which  are  perfectly  legit- 
imate, but  which  far  exceed  the  cost  of  the  regulation  carried 
out  by  the  government.  The  courts  have  been  compelled  to 
admit  that  a  license  fee  is  nob  necessarily  limited  to  the  cost  of 
regulation,  and  that  it  is  not  necessarily  an  exercise  of  the 
police  power.  In  the  leading  case  of  Ash  vs.  People3  the  court 
decided  that  "  the  exaction  is  not  a  tax,  it  is  but  a  reasonable 
compensation  whick  the  city  demands  from  those  who  will  not 

of  property,  of  the  whole  people  of  the  state  or  of  any  individual  within 
it,  and  whose  operation  was  within  the  territorial  limit  of  the  state  and 
upon  the  persons  and  things  within  its  jurisdiction." 

1  113  United  States,  27. 

2  Cooley's  Constitutional  Limitations,  p.  243,  6th  ed. 

3  11  Mich.,  347.  The  city  of  Detroit  established  a  city  meat  market  and 
required  persons  keeping  meat  shops  outside  of  this  market  to  pay  a  license 
fee  of  $5  per  annum.    The  ordinance  was  sustained. 


204     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

sell  in  the  public  markets,  for  the  additional  labor  of  officers  and 
expenses  thereby  imposed.  ...  If  the  city  may  demand 
enough  to  pay  for  making  out  the  license,  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive why  it  may  not  also  demand  enough  to  pay  all  expenses 
attending  supervision  of  the  trade  at  the  place  licensed. "  In 
Chilvers  vs.  People1  the  court  held  that  a  license  is  not  a  tax: 
"It  is  a  price  paid  for  a  franchise  or  public  privilege  in  an  in- 
dividual. " 

This  idea  is  brought  out  very  clearly  in  a  whole  series  of  cases 
in  which  the  courts  have  passed  upon  the  validity  of  incorpor- 
ation charges.  In  Ashley  et  al.  vs.  Ryan,  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Ohio  held  that  the  sum  required  by  statute  for  filing  articles 
of  incorporation,  was  not  a  tax  on  property.  u  The  filing  is 
simply  an  authority  or  license  to  persons  filing  the  articles  to 
become  a  corporation,  and  the  sum  paid  therefor  is  the  con- 
sideration demanded  by  the  state  for  this  right.  The  same  idea 
is  presented  by  Justice  Field  in  Insurance  Co.  vs.  New  York.2 
"  The  right  or  privilege  to  become  a  corporation  ...  is  one 
generally  deemed  of  value  to  corporations The  govern- 
ment may  require  that  corporations  pay  a  specific  sum  each 
year."  In  Monroe  Savings  Bank  vs.  Rochester %  the  court  said: 
"It  must  be  regarded  as  sound  doctrine  that  the  state  may  im- 
pose any  conditions  it  please.  .  .  If  the  grantees  expect  the 
boon,  they  must  bear  the  burden. "  In  the  case  of  Pearl  vs. 
Virginia*  Justice  Field  said:  "  A  grant  of  corporate  existence  is 
the  grant  of  a  special  privilege  to  incorporators. " 

In  these  and  other  cases5  of  the  same  kind  the  courts  have 
apparently  grasped  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  fees; 
namely,  that  they  are  payments  for  special  benefits  conferred  by 
the  state  or  other  public  body  upon  individuals.  But  they  have 
not  carried  it  to  its  logical  conclusions  by  applying  it  as  a  cri- 
terion to  all  fees.  They  have  not  laid  down  the  general  law, 
that  fees  shall  not  exceed  the  value  of  the  special  service  ren- 
dered to  the  individual.  This  standard  of  measurement  has 
been  applied  to  only  a  limited  number  of  fees. 

1  11  Mich.,  50.  337N.Y.,  365. 

2134U.  S.,  599.  *8  Wall.,  168. 

6  Morgan  vs.  La.,  18  U.  S.,  455;  Baker  vs.  Cincinnati,  11  O.,  534; 
Cincinnati  Oas  Co.  vs.  State,  18  O.,  237. 


Legal  Aspect  of  Fees.  205 

As  for  the  rest,  the  courts  have  held  in  some  cases1  that 
charge  should  be  sufficient  to  cover  only  a  small  part  of  the  ex- 
penses incurred  by  the  state;  while  in  others 2  they  have 
sanctioned  fees  high  enough  to  cover  not  only  the  cost  of  direct 
regulation,  but  enough  to  produce  a  fund  to  protect  the  com- 
munity from  indirect  and  probable  injurious  consequences  of  the 
exercise  of  the  privilege.  In  still  other  decisions  the  stand  is 
taken  that  the  fees  should  be  high  enough  to  indemnify  the 
state  for  the  exact  cost  of  furnishing  the  service  to  the  individ- 
ual ;  but  this  cost  is  interpreted  to  include  only  the  direct  con- 
sequences. « 

This  is  the  nature  of  the  decisions  of  the  United  States  Cir- 
cuit Court  for  the  Western  D  istrict  of  Pa.  in  the  case  of  West- 
ern Union  Telegraph  Co.  vs.  Philadelphia.*  The  court  held  that 
an  ordinance  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  charging  $16,000  for 
a  license  to  the  telegraph  company,  levied  a  tax,  and  not  a  fee, 
because  it  far  exceeded  the  amount  expended  by  the  city  in  pro- 
tecting persons  and  property  from  injury  from  the  poles,  wires,, 
and  other  property  of  the  telegraph  company.  Two  years  later 
a  similar  case*  came  up  for  adjudication  in  the  courts  of  Mis- 
souri, arid  was  taken  to  the  Umted  States  Supreme  Court.  The 
question  at  issue  was  whether  the  city  of  St.  Louis  could  charge 
five  dollars  per  pole  for  its  permission  to  the  Western  Union 
Telegraph  Co.  to  do  business  in  the  city.     The  Supreme  Court 

1  Trans.  Co.  vs.  Parksburg,  107  U.  S.,  691;  Packet  Co.  vs.  Keokuk, 
95  U.  S.,  80;  Packet  Co.  vs.  St.  Louis,  100  U.  S.,  423. 

2  Cincinnati  vs.  Buckingham,  12  Ohio,  257. 

State  vs.  Cassidy,  22  Minn.,  320.  "  It,  (the  state)  regards  the  traffic 
(in  liquor)  as  tending  to  produce  intemperance,  and  as  likely  to  entail  upon 
the  state  the  expense  and  burden  of  providing  for  a  class  of  persons  ren- 
dered incapable  of  self-support.  The  evil  influence  and  example  upon 
society  is  necessarily  injurious  to  the  public  welfare  and  prosperity,  and 
therefore  calls  for  such  legislative  action  as  will  operate  as  a  restraint  upon 
the  business  flowing  from  its  prosecution.  To  this  end  a  license  is  re- 
quired, and  the  business  restricted  to  such  persons  as  are  willing  to 
indemnify  the  state  in  part  against  such  probable  results.  .  .  .  These 
measures  are  undoubtedly  police  measures  —  it  is  not  at  all  important 
whether  the  license  produce  revenue  to  the  city  or  not." 

3107U.  S.,  365. 

4  St.  Louis  vs.  W.  U.  Tel.  Co. 


206     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

decided  that  the  charge  was  not  a  tax,  but  was  in  the  nature  of 
a  rental,  or  essentially  a  fee.  "A  municipal  corporation  has 
power  to  impose  a  reasonable  charge  upon  a  company  doing 
inter-state  business,  as  a  compensation  for  the  space  occupied 
by  its  property. "  The  court  makes  no  statement  as  to  how  the 
size  of  the  fee  should  be  gauged,  but  it  is  evident  that  the 
element  of  service  or  benefit  is  of  more  importance  in  this  than 
in  many  previous  decisions. 

In  some  recent  decisions  there  are  traces  of  a  decided  advance 
in  the  legal  interpretation  of  fees.  The  true  criterion,  as  has 
been  explained  before,  by  which  payments  can  be  judged  as  fees 
or  taxes,  must  be  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  special  benefit  to 
the  individual  equivalent  to  the  charge.  The  legislative,  or  law- 
making, body  has  ultimately  the  discretion  and  the  power  to  de- 
cide whether  a  charge  shall  be  imposed  or  not;  and  in  so  doing 
it  also  decides  whether  it  is  a  counter-payment  for  a  service 
rendered  to  certain  individuals  by  the  state,  or  whether  it  is  a 
burden  in  the  form  of  a  tax  imposed  without  reference  to  ser- 
vices. The  intent  of  the  legislative  body  becomes,  therefore,  a 
guiding  principle,  which  has  already  received  recognition  both 
by  state1  and  federal  courts.2 

The  decision  in  which  this  is  brought  out  most  clearly  is  in 
the  case  of  Harmon  vs.  Chicago.4,  Here  the  United  States  Su- 
preme Court  decided  that  an  ordinance  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
was  invalid  which  imposed  a  license  fee  upon  all  tugs  plying  in 
the  Chicago  River,  whether  licensed  by  the  United  States  in 
the  coasting  trade  or  not.  The  charges  would  have  been  per- 
fectly legitimate,  so  the  court  intimated,  if  they  had  been  im- 
posed as  a  consideration  for  improvements  made  in  the  channel 
of  the  river,  which  improvements  were  of  use  to  the  tugs.  The 
fact  was  shown  by  the  attorneys  for  the  defense  that  such  valu- 
able improvements  had  actually  been  made  in  the  Chicago 
River,  but  there  was  nothing  in  the  ordinance  to  show  that  the 
city  council  intended  the  license  fee  as  a  consideration  for  the 
use  of  these  improvements;  on  the  contrary,  there  was  reason 
to  believe  that  the  so-called  fees  were  intended  simply  as  a  tax 

1  Mitchell  vs.  Williams,  27  Ind.,  62. 
3U7U.  S.,  410. 


Legal  Aspect  of  Fees.  207 

on  the  tugs  plying  in  a  river  which  was  a  part  of  the  navigable 
waters  of  the  United  States.  It  was  therefore  held  to  be  an 
interference  with  interstate  commerce.  The  court  here  virtu- 
ally held  that  the  charge  would  have  been  a  legitimate  license 
fee,  had  the  council  imposed  it  with  that  intent;  but,  as  the 
council  had  levied  it  with  the  understanding  that  it  was  a  tax, 
its  intent  and  interpretation  must  be  accepted  by  the  court. 

Essentially  the  same  principles  were  laid  down  in  the  earlier 
case  of  Huse  vs.  Glover,1  where  the  legislature  of  Illinois,  after 
having  expended  much  money  on  locks  and  improvements  in  the 
Illinois  River,  passed  a  law  levying  a  tonnage  toll  on  vessels 
passing  through  these  locks.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  this 
exaction  "was  a  compensation  for  the  use  of  artificial  facili- 
ties constructed,  and  not  an  impost  upon  navigation."  The 
tendency  therefore  seems  to  be  in  the  right  direction,  at  least 
in  the  decisions  of  some  courts.  This  tendency  is  to  construe 
as  fees  all  charges  which  the  legislative  body  intended  to  con 
form  to  the  roughly  measurable  special  benefit. 

B.       FEES  IN  THEIR  RELATION  TO  INTER-STATE  COMMERCE. 

Almost  all  questions  in  regard  to  fees  which  have  come  before 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  adjudication,  have 
involved  some  phase  or  other  of  the  regulation  of  interstate  and 
foreign  commerce.  It  would  seem,  at  first  blush,  as  though  no 
fee  would  be  of  itself  an  interference  with  commerce.  If  the 
fee  charged  is  a  counter-payment,  and  does  not  exceed  the  value 
of  the  equivalent  granted  or  furnished  by  the  state,  it  becomes 
difficult  to  understand  how  such  a  charge  can  interfere  with 
internal  commerce. 

In  the  earlier  decisions  this  was  the  view  taken  by  the  courts. 
In  Osborne  vs.  Mobile2  the  Supreme  Court  passed  upon  the 
validity  of  an  ordinance  which  required  an  express  company 
doing  business  beyond  the  state  limits  to  pay  a  license  fee  of 
$500,  and  an  express  company  doing  business  within  state 
limits  to  pay  $100;  and   charged  a   license  fee  of   $50    to  any 

»119U.  S.,  543. 
2 16  Wall.,  479. 


208     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

local  express  company  whose  business  confined  itself  to  the  city. 
The  validity  of  this  ordinance  was  sustained  on  the  ground  that 
the  fee  was  a  payment  for  the  privilege  of  doing  business  in 
the  city. 

But  this  decision  was  reversed  fifteen  years  later  by  the  same 
court,  in  the  case  of  Leloup  vs.  Mobile,  l  in  which  the  facts  were 
similar  to  those  in  the  case  just  mentioned.  Here  the  court 
held  that  any  tax  or  charge  levied  on  a  company  engaged  in 
interstate  commerce,  was  an  interference  with  such  commerce 
and  hence  unconstitutional.  In  Guy  vs.  Baltimore2  the  court 
decided  that  an  ordinance  which  levied  a  higher  wharfage  fee 
on  vessels  laden  with  products  of  other  states,  than  on  those 
laden  with  products  of  the  state  of  Maryland,  was  unconstitu- 
tional. In  November,  1896,  Judge  G-rosscup  of  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  in  Chicago,  held  that  an  ordinance  passed 
by  the  Chicago  council  violated  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  in  that  it  interfered  with  interstate  commerce.  This 
ordinance  prescribed  a  license  fee  of  $250  to  be  paid  by  anyone 
who  should  sell  or  offer  for  sale  any  spirituous  or  malt  liquors 
in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  was  construed  so  as  to  apply  to 
commercial  travelers  who  sold  liquors  by  sample.  The  United 
States  Supreme  Court  rendered  its  decision  in  the  case  of  Brin- 
ner  vs.  Rebman*  along  almost  the  same  line.  Here  the  state  of 
Virginia  had  passed  a  statute  prescribing  an  inspection  fee  of 
one  cent  per  pound  on  all  beef  transported  one  hundred  miles 
or  more  to  be  sold  within  the  state.  The  court  held  that  the  fee 
charged  was  so  large  as  to  prohibit  practically  the  importation 
of  beef  from  without  the  state.  It  admitted  that  a  small  in- 
spection fee  might  be  legitimate,  but  one  cent  per  pound  was 
so  large  as  to  interfere  seriously  with  interstate  commerce. 
This  is  the  tenor  of  the  decisions  of  the  court  in  Walling  vs. 
Michigan4,  and  in  Railroad  Co.  vs.  Husen.* 

There  are,  however,  even  more  extreme  cases.  The  fee  itself  may 
be  imposed  for  a   legitimate  purpose,  and  may  be  so  low  as  to 

1  127  U.  S.,  640.  4  116  U.  S.,  446. 

2 100  U.  S.,434  .  6 15  U.  S.,  965. 

158  U.  S.,  78. 


Legal  Aspects  of  Fees.  209 

barely  cover  the  cost  of  regulation;  and  yet  the  incidental  or 
indirect  results  may  be  of  such  a  character  that  it  becomes  an 
interference  with  commerce.  The  best  example  of  this  kind  of 
a  fee  may  be  found  in  the  case  of  Minnesota  vs.  Barber.1  The 
validity  of  a  statute  passed  by  Minnesota  in  1889  was  here  ques- 
tioned. This  law  provided  for  the  inspection  of  all  cattle, 
sheep,  or  swine  designed  for  slaughter  for  human  food,  which 
inspection  was  required  to  be  made  within  twenty-four  hours  of 
such  slaughter.  The  inspectors  appointed  for  this  purpose, 
were  allowed  a  small  fee  for  their  services.  The  avowed  pur- 
pose of  this  law  was  to  prevent  the  sale  of  infected  and  unsound 
meat,  and  the  regulations  imposed  were  devised  to  attain  this 
end;  nor  were  the  fees  charged  exorbitant.  No  distinction  was 
made  in  the  law  between  residents  of  Minnesota  and  those  of 
other  states;  and  yet  the  act  was  held  by  the  U.  S.  Supreme 
Court  to  result  in  a  discrimination  against  citizens  of  other 
states,  and  to  interfere  with  the  commerce  carried  on  by  them. 
It  became  a  discrimination  because  it  was  more  difficult  for  a 
resident  of  Illinois  to  conform  to  its  provisions  than  for  a  resi- 
dent of  Minnesota.  The  court  therefore  declared  it  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional, not  because  the  fee  itself  interfered  with  commerce, 
but  because  the  indirect  effects  were  such.  It  seems,  therefore, 
to  be  accepted  by  the  courts  that  any  law  which  requires  a 
party,  under  any  pretext,  to  take  out  a  license  to  carry  on  in- 
terstate commerce,  interferes  to  that  extent  with  such  com- 
merce, and  hence  is  unconstitutional.2 

In  the  most  recent  cases  quoted  in  the  preceding,  the  courts 
seem  to  assert  that  inspection  regulations  involving  fee  pay- 
ments and  other  requirements  of  the  same  nature,  come  under 
this  inhibition. 

1 136  U.  S.,  313.  No  beef  packer  in  Illinois  could  send  his  cattle  to  Min- 
nesota and  have  them  inspected  and  then  ship  them  back  to  Illinois  for 
slaughter;  and  yet  this  would  be  the  practical  effect  of  the  law,  if  the 
meat  was  designed  for  sale  in  Minnesota. 

2  This  has  been  the  interpretation  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Pickard  vs. 

Pullman  /Southern  Car  Co.,  117  U.  S.,   594;  Roffins  vs.  Shelby  City 

Taxing  District,  120  U.  S.,  489;  Stutenbourgh  vs.  Henrick,  129  U.  S., 

141;  M.  C.  Call  vs.  Calif.,  136  U.  S.,  129;  Norfolk  and  Western  R.  R. 

Co.  vs.  Pa.,  136  U.  S.,  114. 
14 


210     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

The  existence  of  any  regular  development,  or  evolution,  in 
the  views  of  the  supreme  and  other  courts,  may  perhaps  be 
called  in  question  by  men  -who  emphasize  the  purely  legal  as- 
pect of  court  decisions;  but  a  study  of  the  cases  from  an  his- 
torical point  of  view,  seems  to  reveal  very  clearly  the  changes 
which  have  been  outlined. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE  FEE  SYSTEM  AS  A  SOCIAL   FORCE. 

The  opinion  seems  to  be  prevalent  that  social  forces  are  so 
very  cumbersome  and  unwieldy  that  it  is  well-nigh  impossible 
to  influence  or  effect  them.  Color  is  lent  to  the  idea  by  the 
enormous  amount  of  social  energy  which  often  has  to  be  ex- 
pended to  secure  a  comparatively  insignificant  reform.  It  must 
be  remembered,  however,  that  many  of  the  so-called  social  re- 
forms are  simply  attempts  at  rolling  a  stone  up  hill,  with  ex- 
ceedingly crude  or  unsuitable  instruments.  Oftentimes,  too, 
the  momentum  which  it  has  acquired  it  its  downward  course 
must  be  counteracted.  But  if  taken  at  the  critical  point,  if 
the  golden  opportunity  is  seized  by  the  legislator,  the  social 
reformer,  or  statesman,  the  social  forces  may  be  guided  and  are 
as  susceptible  of  human  influence  as  the  most  delicate  clock- 
work. Scientific  research  is  gradually  bringing  to  light  new 
methods  of  guiding  and  restraining  the  forces  which  appear  to 
be  working  injury  to  society.  But  before  any  attempt  is  made 
to  regulate  or  restrain  any  activity,  it  is  necessary  to  determine 
exactly  what  its  bearings  are.  This  is  the  first  question  which 
a  social  science  has  to  solve.  Why  is  the  influence  of  an  insti- 
tution bad?  Is  it  because  the  whole  institution  is  of  itself 
vicious,  or  is  it  because  some  safeguard  or  check  has  been  neg- 
lected? Studies  of  this  kind  often  show  the  vast  importance  of 
comparatively  insignificant  details.  A  very  innocent-looking 
provision  in  a  law  may  result  in  vice,  crime,  and  other  disast- 
rous consequences.     A  slight  change  in  the  conditions  affecting 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  211 

vagrants  may  increase  or  decrease  the  number  of  tramps  by 
thousands.  An  almost  insignificant  pecuniary  reward  to  a 
judge  or  constable  will  double  the  number  of  arrests  and  com- 
mitments in  a  single  year.  Changing  the  method  of  remuner- 
ating the  prosecuting  attorney  may  lead  to  the  perversion  of 
the  whole  system  of  justice.  An  unimportant  change  in  a 
divorce  law  may  cause  an  enormous  increase  in  the  number  of 
divorces. 

A.       THE  FEE-SYSTEM  AND  THE  TRAMP  QUESTION. 

Why  is  the  army  of  vagrants  each  year  becoming  greater,  is 
a  question  which  is  heard  from  many  sides.  One  general 
answer,  which  seems  almost  self-evident,  is  this:  Because  the 
life  of  a  vagrant  or  tramp  is  more  desirable  and  agreeable,  to 
his  mind  at  least,  than  is  that  of  a  productive  worker.  If  we 
analyze  this  still  further,  we  find  that  such  a  state  of  affairs 
may  be  brought  about  by  two  distinct  sets  of  circumstances. 
Either  the  conditions  effecting  tramp  life  have  become  more 
attractive,  or  the  lot  of  the  worker  has  become  less  attractive 
and  desirable.  Only  the  first  of  these  hypotheses  comes  within 
the  scope  of  the  subject  in  hand. 

Tramp  life  is  made  possible  and  even  agreeable  by  private 
charity  and  alms,  or  by  state  aid  and  relief.  A  great  deal  has 
been  said,  and  a  great  stress  has  been  laid,  upon  the  evils  of 
indiscriminate  charity  and  out-door  relief;  while  scarcely  a 
voice  is  heard  against  the  direct  premium  placed  upon  va- 
grancy, as  a  result  of  the  use  of  the  fee-system  to  remunerate 
certain  public  officers.  The  average  tramp  would  be  forced 
either  to  work  or  to  starvation,  if  he  could  find  no  comfortable 
or  convenient  county-jail  in  which  to  spend  the  long,  cold 
winter.  Under  existing  conditions,  however,  he  is  often  a  wel- 
come visitor  at  these  public  lodging  houses;  for  both  the  jailor 
and  sheriff  are  financially  better  off  for  each  extra  "  knight  of 
the  road "  whom  they  can  induce  to  accept  their  hospitality, 
because  the  county  pays  the  bill  at  so  much  per  head,  and  the 
larger  the  number,  the  greater  the  profits  for  the  keeper.1  What 

1  Tramps  are  often  furnished  with  liquor,  tobacco,  and  newspapers,  to 
induce  them  to  return. 


212     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

wonder  that  some  of  our  county  jails  are  known  far  and  wide 
among  the  vagrant  classes  for  their  accommodations!  Is  it  sur- 
prising that  instances  repeatedly  occur,  where  a  tramp  commits 
some  misdemeanor  before  the  very  eyes  of  the  sheriff  or  con- 
stable, with  the  express  purpose  of  securing  a  commitment  to 
jail  for  a  period  of  time? 

Counties  using  this  system  find  the  number  of  tramps  increas- 
ing year  after  year,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  jail  or  prison 
is  crowded  the  greater  part  of  the  time.  This  has  continued, 
in  many  cases,  until  the  expense  of  maintaining  tramps  has  be- 
come unbearable,  and  a  demand  is  made  for  a  new  system.  As 
a  result  the  jailor  and  sheriff,  or  both,  are  given  a  fixed  allow- 
ance out  of  which  to  support  and  feed  all  prisoners,1  and  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  labor  is  required  of  these  to  relieve  the  monot- 
ony. The  conditions  become  changed.  The  sheriff  is  no  longer 
interested  in  having  as  large  a  number  of  tramps  as  possible 
within  his  county.  Life  within  the  prison  walls  is  made  less 
attractive;  and  as  a  result  the  stream  of  vagrants  takes  another 
route,  through  more  hospitable  districts.  A  change  like  the 
one  above  described  took  place  in  Dane  county,  "Wisconsin;  and 
in  four  years  the  cost  of  maintaining  tramps  was  reduced  from 
$15,000  to  $3,000.2  This  amount  represents  the  taxes  annually 
levied  and  actually  paid  by  the  public  in  a  single  county  to  sup- 
port the  tramp  during  that  seasen  of  the  year  in  which  he  can- 
not depend  on  private  charity.  In  one  sense  it  may  be  looked 
upon  as  a  standing  bribe  to  encourage  shil'tlessness,  in  the  same 
way  that  the  poor  laws  of  the  last  century  put  pauperism  at  a 
premium  in  England.3 

The  jailor  and  keeper  are  not  the  only  public  officers  who  are 
interested  in  the  existence  and  presence  of  the  tramps.  Where 
the  fee-system  is  fully  applied,  we  find  every  judicial  officer  more 
or  less  interested  in  having  as  many  tramps  brought  up  for 
trial  as  possible.     It  means,  as  a  rule,  a  fee  for  the  judge,  a  fee 

1  This  system  is  now  in  force  in  several  counties  in  Wisconsin. 

2  Report  of  Dane  Co.  Board  of  Supervisors. 

3  A  member  of  the  Wisconsin  State  Board  of  Charities  estimates  that 
the  tramps,  through  the  fee  system,  cost  the  state  over  a  quarter  of  a  mil- 
lion dollars  a  year. 


Tfie  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  213 

for  the  sheriff,1  and  a  fee  for  every  other  officer  who  takes  part 
in  the  trial.  It  is  but  natural  that  inducements  should  be  made 
for  the  vagrant  to  return  and  be  re-arrested,2  to  be  perhaps 
again  committed  to  jail  for  a  short  time.  Indeed,  to  such  an 
extent  have  these  frauds  been  carried,  that  it  has  been  found 
necessary  in  some  states3  to  pass  laws  prescribing  heavy  penal- 
ties for  conspiracy  between  tramps  and  judicial  officers  *  to  de- 
fraud the  counties.5 

Even  if  we  grant  that  the  increased  use  of  machinery  in  pro- 
duction, and  the  consequent  industrial  system,  is  responsible  for 
the  idleness  of  many  in  our  dependent  classes,  still  the  ease  with 
which  they  obtain  their  food  and  shelter,  is  the  primary  reason 
why  so  many  become  professional  tramps  instead  of  returning 
to  productive  labor  when  opportunity  is  offered.  Austria  forces 
tramps  to  work  for  a  definite  period  in  a  work-house  or  a  house 
of  correction.  Belgium  prescribes  a  comparatively  long  time  in 
a  compulsory  workshop.  France  fixes  imprisonment  and  hard 
work  for  at  least  three  months.  Germany  has  her  public  tramp- 
hotels,  and  strict  police  supervision,  and  England  her  tramp 
work-houses.6  All  of  these  countries  are  attempting  to  discour- 
age vagrancy;  while  in  the  United  States,  with  a  tramp  prob- 
lem more  pressing  and  serious  than  any  which  Europe  has  had 
to  solve,  we  find  many  states  and  counties  which  indirectly 
spend  huge  sums,  not  to  reform  the  vagrant  or  to  enable  him  to 
become  a  productive    worker,  but  practically  to  encourage    him 

1  The  fees  of  the  sheriff  for  each  tramp  are  said  to  run  from  four  to  six 
dollars,  while  those  of  the  judge  vary  from  two  to  three  dollars. 

2  Tramps  are  often  induced  to  appear  before  the  justice  in  the  forenoon 
under  one  name  and  in  the  afternoon  under  another,  so  as  to  earn  extra 
fees  for  each  official. 

3 Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1889. 

4  Some  cases  have  been  found  where  the  same  tramp  was  serving  three 
different  sentences  at  one  time,  by  being  discharged  and  re-arrested  and 
recommitted  to  jail,  so  as  to  earn  fees  for  the  sheriff  and  magistrate. 

8  This  state  of  affairs  is  not  confined  to  a  few  states.  Inquiries  in  the 
different  states  show  that  the  same  frauds  have  been,  or  are  at  present, 
prevalent  in  New  York,  in  New  England,  in  the  South,  in  the  Middle 
States,  and  in  the  far  West. 

6  See  consular  reports. 


214     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the    United  States. 

to  continue  the  life  which  he  has  begun.  Public  charity  and 
philanthropy  are  all  well  and  good,  provided  they  accomplish 
their  purpose,  but  that  does  not  justify  a  system  which  takes 
thousands  out  of  the  public  treasury  without  benefiting  a  single 
vagrant.  The  tramp  is  simply  used  as  an  instrument  for  tak- 
ing money  in  the  shape  of  fees  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  public, 
and  putting  them  into  the  fee-paid  officer's  purse.1  But  a  very 
small  part  is  used  to  feed  the  tramp,  and  this  small  part  does 
him  and  the  community  more  harm  than  good. 

B.       FEES    IN    POLICE    COURTS,    AND    CRIME. 

Until  quite  recently  both  the  police  force  and  the  municipal 
courts  in  most  of  our  large  cities  were  supported  more  or  less 
by  fees  and  fines,  under  the  mistaken  idea  that  the  main  func- 
tion of  police  officer  was  to  catch  criminals,  and  that  the  func- 
tion of  courts  was  to  pronounce  sentence  on  them  when  caught. 
It  was  also  supposed  that  these  public  officials  would  perform 
their  duties  more  efficienty  if  impelled  by  self-interest.  This 
conclusion  seems  reasonable  enough  at  first  blush,  but  the 
trouble  is  that  it  is  based  on  absolutely  false  premises.  The 
great  and  primary  function  of  a  police  officer  is  not  the  appre- 
hension of  criminals,  but  the  repression  of  crime.  Paying  a 
police  office  according  to  the  number  of  arrests  made,  is  about 
like  paying  a  teacher  according  to  the  number  of  floggings  he 
has  inflicted. 

Not  only  that,  but  we  have  a  large  body  of  men  whose  "  bread 
and  butter  "  depends  on  having  the  laws  violated,  although  they 
are  themselves  its  ministers.  The  idea  never  seems  to  have  oc- 
curred that  there  was  any  danger  of  over-officiousness  on  the 
part  of  any  official.  The  more  criminals  caught,  the  better,  it 
is  said.  True! — but  have  we  any  guarantee  that  the  police  will 
catch  only  actual  criminals?     What  is  to  prevent  him  from  mak- 

1  Prom  counties  having  tramp  workshops  come  reports  that  they  are 
empty  most  of  the  time,  because  the  justices  are  pecuniarily  interested  in 
the  vagrant,  and  thus  fail  to  sentence  them  to  the  work-house.  Thus  the 
fee-system  becomes,  indirectly  at  least,  the  cause  of  the  failure  of  this  so- 
lution of  the  tramp  problem. 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  215 

ing  arrests  on  slight  suspicions,  or  for  trifling  or  unwarrant- 
able reasons?  The  same  self-interest  impels  him  in  the  latter 
as  in  the  former  case.  As  a  rule,  hungry  men  are  not  over 
scrupulous  about  the  means  and  methods  which  will  secure  them 
bread.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  would  sacri- 
fice their  most  important  function,  that  is,  that  of  repression, 
to  the  more  profitable  employment  of  making  arrests.  Indeed, 
this  is  amply  illustrated  by  the  experience  of  every  city  which 
has  changed  from  fee-paid  policemen  to  salaried  officers.  An 
act  of  the  Maryland  legislature  abolished  the  fee-system  in  Bal- 
timore in  1862,  and  as  a  result  the  number  of  arrests  for  minor 
offences  decreased  from  twelve  to  seven  thousand.  The  decrease 
in  the  number  of  arrests  did  not  result  in  more  lawlessness  or 
more  petty  offences,  but  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  fewer  un- 
called-for and  unnecessary  arrests. 

Hundreds  and  thousands  of  poor  victims  are  each  year  dragged 
to  prison,  who  when  brought  before  a  magistrate  must  be  dis- 
charged for  want  of  evidence.  To  the  world  it  is  immaterial 
whether  a  few  arrests  more  or  less  are  made  If  the  arrested 
individuals  are  innocent,  they  will  be  discharged,  it  is  held,  so 
what  difference  does  it  make?  But  it  does  make  a  difference  to 
the  unfortunate  wretches.  Dragged  to  prison  for  some  trivial, 
petty  offence,1  they  must  await  trial  in  the  morning,  unless 
they  can  satisfy  the  exorbitant  demands  of  the  professional 
bailor.  Even  if  acquitted  and  discharged  in  the  end,  their  self- 
respect  is  lowered,  their  feelings  toward  the  public  are  embit- 
tered, and  a  stigma  is  cast  upon  them  and  their  family  which 
may  lead  to  their  ruin.  But  that  makes  no  difference  to  the 
jailor,  the  magistrate,  the  constable,  or  policeman,  who  are  each 
of  them  richer  by  the  amount  of  their  fee  on  account  of  this  ar- 
rest. But  suppose  the  man  is  really  guilty,  and  suppose  that 
he  was  even  caught  in  the  act  of  committing  some  misdemeanor; 
he  is  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine,  or,  in  default,  to  a  term  in  the 
county  jail  or  penitentiary;  and  society  is  supposed  to  be  that 
much  better  off,  on  account  of  the  zeal  of  the  constable  or  police 
officer.     Not  so,  however.     The  term  in  the  penitentiary  is  not 

1  Altgeld,  Inaugural  Address,  Jan.,  1893. 


216     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

going  to  reform  a  man  sentenced  for  being  drunk.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  generally  admitted  that  many  of  our  county  jails 
and  penitentiaries  are  training  schools  of  crime;  and  that  the 
man  who  was  "  sent  up  "  for  some  petty  offence  often  comes  back 
a  full-fledged  criminal.  The  more  trivial  the  offence,  the  more 
likely  is  he  to  react  against  law  and  order,  and  become  a  real 
criminal,  to  prey  upon  society.  Better  far  that  many  criminals 
should  go  unpunished  than  that  one  innocent  man  should  be  ex- 
posed to  such  humiliating  and  dangerous  environment. 

About  each  police  court  in  our  great  cities  there  is  always 
hovering  a  large  number  of  pettifoggers  or  mediocre  lawyers, 
who  are  waiting  to  be  appointed  to  defend  any  wretch,  for  the 
fees  that  are  allowed  them.  Where  they  have  access  to  the 
prisoners  before  the  preliminary  hearing,  they  often  succeed  in 
getting  every  prisoner  to  plead  not  guilty  and  demand  trial,  no 
matter  how  clear  a  case  of  guilt  it  may  be.  This  practice  is 
often  encouraged  by  the  custom,  still  prevalent  in  many  states, 
of  allowing  the  prisoner  to  choose  the  attorney  who  shall  appear 
in  his  defense,  even  where  the  latter  is  paid  for  his  services  out 
of  the  public  treasury.  There  is  also  another  class  of  men 
which  the  fee  system  attracts  to  these  same  courts.  These  are 
mainly  local  "politicians,"  retired  saloon-keepers,  and  other 
idlers,  who  hang  around  the  corridors  of  every  police  court,  wait- 
ing for  an  opportunity  to  serve  as  jurors  for  the  sake  of  the  fee. 
So  serious  has  the  evil  become,  that  the  abolition  of  the  entire 
jury  system  in  the  police  courts  has  been  advocated. 

C.       PEES  AND  JUSTICES   OF  THE   PEACE. 

There  is  perhaps  no  part  of  the  American  judicial  system 
which  exists  with  such  uniformity  in  all  states,  as  the  Justice 
of  the  Peace.  And  everywhere,  almost  without  an  exception, 
his  remuneration  consists  in  the  fees  which  he  collects.  This 
official  seems  almost  indispensable  to  the  local  administration 
of  justice,  and  no  state  has  as  yet  been  able  to  devise  any  fair 
and  economical  system  of  compensation  other  than  by  fees. 

The  amount  of  business  done  by  each  of  these  officials  varies 
from  time  to  time  and  place  to  place.     One   justice  may   have 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  2Y7 

regular  daily  sessions,  while  another  i3  scarcely  ever  called  upon 
to  act.  All  cannot  be  paid  salaries,  as  it  would  entail  enormous 
expense  to  the  public;  and  apparently  such  a  system  would  be 
unjust  to  the  magistrate  who  is  called  upon  to  act  often.  To 
the  casual  observer  it  would  seem,  therefore,  as  though  some 
well-devised  scale  of  fees  would  be  the  only  just  and  fair  method 
of  remuneration.  But  a  closer  investigation  will  reveal  the  fact, 
that  other  things  must  be  taken  into  consideration  besides  the 
interests  of  the  justice  of  the  peace,  and  the  economy  of  public 
money.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  "penny  wise  and  pound 
foolish  "  policy  in  public,  as  well  as  in  private  economics. 

Perhaps  no  single  influence  has  done  more  injury  through  the 
American  courts  than  the  fee  system  in  its  effects  on  the  Jus- 
tice of  the  Peace,  The  men  who  occupy  this  position  are  not 
as  a  rule  of  such  a  character  that  they  can  stand  by  and  uncon- 
cernedly see  all  cases,  and  in  consequence  all  fees  connected 
with  them,  go  to  the  rival  or  neighboring  justice.  As  a  rule 
they  are  not  men  of  means,  and  a  fee  more  or  less  is  of  great 
importance.  What  is  the  result?  The  result  is  that  the  decis- 
ion of  a  justice  of  the  peace  is  almost  certain  to  be  a  discrimi- 
nation in  favor  of  the  plaintiff.  Why?  Because  it  is  the  plaint- 
iff who  begins  the  suit,  and  he  or  his  lawyer  has  the  option  of 
bringing  the  case  in  justice  A's  or  Justice  B's  or  any  other 
court.  If  he  brings  it  into  Justice  A's  court,  it  means  a  cer- 
tain number  of  fees  for  him,  and  he  must  therefore  show  his 
gratitude  by  rendering  his  judgment  for  the  plaintiff.  But  sup- 
pose the  justice  has  the  moral  courage  to  decide  the  case  on  its 
merits,  and  that  as  a  result  his  decision  is  in  favor  of  the  de- 
fendant. The  consequence  is  that  Justice  A  will  receive  no 
more  patronage  from  that  lawyer  or  plaintiff.  All  the  cases, 
and  hence  all  the  fees  which  he  might  have  had,  are  therefore 
transferred  to  Justice  B  who  is  more  grateful. 

These  cases  are  not  pure  assumptions.  They  are  actual  facts 
which  are  known  and  utilized  every  day  by  lawyers  throughout 
the  land.  The  many  upright  and  conscientious  justices,  whose 
characters  are  above  reproach,  are  prevented  from  exerting  even 
the  average  amount  of  influence  by  the  vicious  system,  which 
from  its  very  nature  drives  the  business  into  the  courts  of  these 


218     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

disreputable  wretches  who  are  willing  to  barter  their  judgment 
for  a  paltry  fee.  The  system  becomes  in  its  essence,  in  many 
cases,  a  legalized  method  of  bribery.  The  whole  administration 
of  justice  is  perverted  in  that  large  class  of  cases  in  which  the 
humbler  classes  of  the  community  are  most  likely  to  be  affected. 
Such  a  system  would  not  be  tolerated  in  the  higher  courts,  while 
here  it  is  continued  year  after  year  without  protest,  because- 
the  cases  affected  as  a  rule  are  petty  and  insignificant  in  regard 
to  the  amount  involved. 

In  many  Eastern  cities  the  mayor  and  aldermen  exercise  the 
function  and  receive  the  fees  of  magistrates.  These,  as  a  rule, 
have  been  as  much  influenced  by  the  desire  to  obtain  fees  as  any 
other  justices;  nor  has  their  judicial  function  tended  to  take 
away  the  stigma  usually  attached  to  the  very  name  of  Alder- 
man. One  of  the  methods  of  reform  proposed  is  to  abolish  en- 
tirely the  office  of  justice  of  the  peace  and  turn  over  the  duties 
to  salaried  police  courts.1 

D.       FEES  OF  THE  DISTRICT  ATTORNEY  AND  THE    ADMINISTRATION    OF' 

JUSTICE. 

One  of  the  relics  of  barbarism  which  exists  in  some  states  or, 
perhaps  more  accurately,  one  of  the  barbarous  inventions  of  this 
nineteenth  century,  is  the  system  of  paying  district  or  state 
attorney's  fees  varying  in  amount  according  to  the  number  and 
character  of  the  convictions  secured.  This  method  is  not  based 
on  the  experience  of  any  state,  but  is  like  so  many  other  un- 
practical schemes  which  are  adopted  and  applied  in  many 
Western  commonwealths.  To  be  sure,  there  have  been  laws  in 
some  of  the  original  states  which  are  somewhat  similar  and 
may  be  called  antecedents  of  these.  But  the  differences  are 
broad  and  far-reaching.  A  Connecticut  statute  of  1796 2  pro- 
vided that  the  state  attorney  should  receive  fees  roughly  pro- 
portioned to  the  nature  of  the  trial.3  For  prosecuting  a  trial* 
for  a  capital  offence  he  secured  $14,  for  any  other  criminal  case 
$9,   and  for  any   civil  case    $3.34.      This,     however,    is    widely 

1  Altgeld,  Lire  Questions. 

2  Statutes,  p.  181. 

3  An  early  law  of  Delaware  gave  the  attorney  general  $10  for  the  prose- 
cution of  a  capital  offence  and  $2.40  for  drawing  an  indictment,  etc. 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  219 

different  from  the  system  now  in  force  in  California,1  which 
pays  the  attorney  $50  for  every  conviction  he  secures  for  a 
capital  offence,  $25  for  each  conviction  of  felony,  and  $15  for 
misdemeanor;  and,  with  the  object  apparently  of  especially 
punishing  gambling,  the  same  premium  is  placed  on  conviction 
under  the  act  prohibiting  gaming  as  for  a  capital  offence. 

In  Arkansas2  the  prosecuting  attorney  receives  $75  for  a  con- 
viction of  a  capital  offence,  $35  for  securing  conviction  for 
homicide,  $25  for  felony,  $25  for  gambling,  and  $10  for  each 
misdemeanor.  In  Tennessee3  the  district  attorney  receives  $50 
for  each  conviction  of  violation  of  the  anti-trust  law;  while 
for  obtaining  a  conviction  for  murder  or  wearing  "bowie-knife" 
or  violating  the  law  against  conspiracies,  the  fee  is  $25;  for  a 
conviction  of  perjury  $15;  felony  $10;  and  misdemeanor  $5. 
In  Nevada*  the  fees  are  relatively  the  same  but  five  times  as 
large.  In  Oregon5  there  is  another  departure.  Here  the  attor- 
ney receives  certain  fixed  fees  for  convictions,  and  in  case  the 
trial  results  in  acquittal  he  receives  only  half  the  amount.6 

There  are  therefore  at  least  three  distinct  methods  in  force. 
First,  the  old  system  of  granting  the  district  attorney  a  fee 
varying  in  amount  according  to  the  nature  of  the  offense  for 
which  prosecution  is  undertaken.  Second,  paying  the  attorney 
for  his  services  by  fees  graded  according  to  the  enormity  of  the 
crime  or  the  desirability  of  having  the  offense  punished;  paying 
however,  not  for  prosecuting  the  case,  but  for  securing  the 
conviction.  Third,  rewarding  the  attorney  with  a  much  larger 
fee  in  case  he  secures  conviction  than  when  the  trial  results  in 
acquittal.7 

1  Deering's  Code,  IV.,    Sec.  77,  p.  540. 

2  Laws,  1894,  par.  3304. 

3  Laws,  1895,  Ch.  4,  §5. 
*Laws,  1861,  173. 

6  Laws,  1878,  Art.  21,  Sec.  2. 

"  Other  examples  are  as  follows:  In  Florida, —  for  conviction  of  murder 
in  first  degree  $30,  in  second  degree  $10;  any  felony  $5;  carrying  concealed 
weapons  $10.  Laws,  1885,  Ch.  3620,  par.  2;  1877,  Ch.  3000,  Sec.  1.  In 
New  Mex., —  for  conviction  of  murder  in  first  degree  $20;  second  degree 
$15;  any  felony  $5. 

7  For  conviction  $25;  for  acquittal  $12.50.— Laws,  Wyoming,  1802,  p.  314. 


220     Urdahl—The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

All  of  these  methods  are  fundamentally  wrong,  and  based  on 
theory  which  cannot  be  supported  either  by  facts  or  by  argu- 
ments. It  is  supposed  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  attorney 
by  offering  him  a  pecuniary  inducement  to  undertake  and  pros- 
ecute cases.  But  is  there  not  every  legitimate/incentive  to  an 
attorney  to  do  his  work  well,  even  when  he  is  paid  by  salary? 
His  reputation  as  a  lawyer  is  at  stake,  the  esteem  and  good  will 
of  his  constituents  impel  him  to  prosecute  every  legitimate  case. 
His  success  as  a  lawyer  after  his  term  of  office  expires,  will  de- 
pend largely  on  the  way  in  which  he  performs  his  duties  of  office. 
He  can  gain  nothing  by  letting  crime  go  unpunished,  and  he 
has  everything  to  lose. 

But  suppose  the  man  is  of  such  a  character  that  the  paltry 
fee  will  stimulate  him  to  action.  If  it  is  only  the  money  he  is 
after,  what  is  to  prevent  him  from  accepting  a  higher  reward 
from  the  criminal  for  not  prosecuting  than  the  state  offers  for 
conviction?  What  is  to  prevent  him  from  "drumming  up" 
business  by  beginning  suits  wherever  there  is  the  slighest 
chance  of  winning. 

It  is  held  to  be  economical,  because  the  attorney,  it  is  thought, 
would  not  begin  cases  unless  he  supposed  he  could  win;  and  if 
he  is  a  poor  attorney,  he  would  not  win  his  cases,  and  as  a  re- 
sult it  would  cost  the  county  and  state  little  or  nothing.  But 
this  economy  is  apparent,  not  real.  The  attorney's  fee  is  by 
far  the  smallest  item  to  the  state  in  the  cost  of  the  trial;  all  the 
other  expenses  will  have  to  be  borne,  even  if  the  suit  results  in 
acquittal.  These  other  expenses  are  likely  to  be  increased  many 
fold,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  attorney  is  only  striving  for 
conviction.  Witnesses  and  jurymen  will  be  summoned  regard- 
less of  cost  to  the  public  and  regardless  of  the  triviality  of  the 
offense.  There  are  few  cases  so  doutful  that  there  is  no  chance 
of  winning,  and  to  win  means  subsistence  to  the  attorney.  What 
is  to  hinder  him  from  beginning  proceedings  wherever  there  is 
a  chance  to  win?  What  is  prevent  him  from  summoning  a  jury 
and  a  crowd  of  witnesses  wherever  there  is  opportunity  for  liti- 
gation? He  has  nothing  to  lose  but  his  time;  the  state  foots 
the  bill  for  the  rest.  There  are  always  plenty  of  people  who 
will  act  as  complaining  witnesses,  providing  the  district  attor- 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  221 

ney  will  prosecute  the  case  at  public  expense.  There  will  be 
numerous  instances  where  suits  will  be  instituted  simply  be- 
cause of  the  spite  which  one  neighbor  bears  another.  If  the  at- 
torney is  paid  fees,  he  will  be  eager  to  undertake  any  and  all 
of  these  cases  which  the  people  offer  to  furnish  evidence  for. 

From  the  standpoint  of  public  welfare  the  position  of  the  dis- 
trict attorney  is  an  exeeedingly  important  office.  Next  to  that 
of  the  judge,  it  is  the  most  important  in  our  judicial  system, 
and  in  some  cases  he  even  assumes  some  of  the  latter's  duties. 
The  attorney  must,  in  fact,  perform  many  of  the  functions  of 
the  higher  magistrate,  especially  in  weighing  evidence,  and  ex- 
amining witnesses,  to  determine  whether  a  process  should  be 
begun  or  not.  In  order  to  perform  his  duties  properly,  he  should 
approach  each  case  with  an  unbiased  and  unprejudiced  mind, 
aiming  only  to  secure  the  prevalence  of  justice.  But  how  can  a 
man  be  unprejudiced  before  whose  face  there  is  always  shaken  a 
reward  for  securing  conviction,  and  a  penalty  in  the  form  of 
unremunerated  work,  in  the  case  of  acquittal?  We  must  take 
men  as  they  are.  Lawyers  are  human  just  as  well  as  politicians. 
They  cannot  help  being  influenced,  to  some  extent  at  least,  by 
conditions  which  affect  the  well  being  of  themselves  and  their 
families.  There  is  many  a  case  in  which  the  district  attorney 
himself  is  very  much  in  doubt  as  to  whether  the  accused  is  inno- 
cent or  guilty. '  If  the  prisoner  is  poor  and  has  inexperienced 
counsel,  the  chances  are  that  the  abler  lawyer  will  get  the  ver- 
dict. Such  cases  are  by  no  means  rare,  in  which  the  excessive 
zeal  of  an  attorney  for  his  fee  can  secure  the  conviction  of  one 
who  is  innocent.2 

An  innocent  man  may  suffer  punishment  and  serve  his  time  in 
the  penitentiary,  and  the  world  is  no  wiser.  He,  however, 
becomes  a  different  man.  He  looks  upon  the  state  as  his  enemy r 
and  is  more  than  likely  to  become  the  real  criminal  he  was  sus- 

1  From  testimony  of  many  who  are  or  have  been  district  attorneys. 

2  Of  early  legislation  of  the  same  tenor  as  these  laws,  may  be  mentioned 
the  "Fugitive  slave  law,"  passed  Sept.  12,  1850.  —  See  Congressional 
Globe.  One  of  the  provisions  of  this  act,  against  which  a  great  outcry 
was  raised  in  the  North,  was  that  marshals  or  justices  securing  the  con- 
viction of  a  negro  as  a  runaway,  should  receive  $10;  while  if  acquittal  was 
the  result,  the  court  fee  should  only  be  $5. 


222     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

pected  of  being.  It  must  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is 
usually  the  poor,  the  unfortunate,  and  the  less  favored  mem- 
bers of  society  that  are  likely  to  be  exposed  to  unjust  prosecu- 
tion. The  rich  and  strong  are  able  to  protect  themselves,  and 
can  usually  secure  remuneration  for  their  trouble.  Nor  is  this 
all.  The  fee-paid  district  attorney  is  directly  interested  in  hav- 
ing no  criminal  plead  guilty  without  a  trial.  He  will  usually 
see  to  it  that  no  prisoner  pleads  guilty  at  the  outset.  Thus  a 
great  many  cases  that  might  be  disposed  of  without  trouble  or 
cost,  result  in  expense  and  needless  trials. 

Taken  altogether,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  whole 
system  is  vicious.  It  is  not  economical,  in  fact  it  is  quite  the 
opposite.  It  is  not  likely  to  make  the  attorney  any  more  effi- 
cient, except  in  "  drumming  up  "  cases  for  petty  or  trivial  of- 
fenses. It  will  not  lead  to  the  punishment  of  more  actual  crimi- 
nals, while  it  may  lead  to  the  unjust  punishment  of  innocent 
persons  against  whom  some  malicious  individual  bears  a  grudge. 
Finally,  it  tends  to  degrade  one  of  the  most  important  positions 
in  the  American  courts  into  a  pettifogger's  office,  to  be  run  for 
gain. 

E.       THE  RELATION    OF    THE    FEE-SYSTEM  TO    THE  DIVORCE    PROBLEM. 

It  might  appear  to  a  careless  observer  that  the  connection 
between  the  fee-system  and  the  number  of  divorces  is  very 
slight.  But  a  careful  examination  will  disclose  the  fact,  that 
certain  allowances  in  the  nature  of  fees  are  indirectly  responsi- 
ble for  a  large  proportion  of  the  hasty  and  uncalled-for  divorces 
granted  in  many  states.  Our  divorce  laws  have  in  most  states 
been  framed  so  as  to  be  favorable  to  the  wife  as  against  the 
husband.  In  the  eye  of  the  law  she  is  the  weaker,  and  is  more 
likely  to  require  the  strong  arm  of  the  state  to  free  her  from 
bonds  too  onerous  to  be  endured.  A  great  many  states  have 
therefore  provided  that  she  shall  be  entitled  to  court  money 
from  her  husband  as  soon  as  she  files  her  application,  and 
usually  she  is  given  alimony  if  the  divorce  is  granted. 

The  purpose  of  the  court  money  is  to  enable  her  to  engage  an 
attorney  to  plead  her  case,  and  it  is  usually  paid  to  the  lawyer 
as  his  fee.     In  amount  it  is  just  about  large  enough  to  make  the 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  223 

procuring  of  divorces  a  lucrative  practice  to  second-rate  attor- 
neys. What  is  the  result?  A  large  number  of  lawyers  are 
anxious  to  prosecute  divorces,  and  stand  ready  to  undertake  a 
prosecution  as  soon  as  any  woman  has  told  her  tale  of  woe. 
Divorce  agencies  are  established  in  large  cities  which  advertise 
that  they  can  guarantee  a  divorce  in  so  and  so  many  months.  The 
wife  deposits  nothing,  pays  for  nothing; they  take  their  pay  out  of 
the  court  money  collected  from  the  husband.  Is  it  to  be  wondered 
at  that  the  number  of  divorces  increases  so  very  rapidly?  As  a  re- 
sult of  a  little  family  quarrel  the  wife  in  a  fit  of  anger  resolves 
that  she  can  not  and  will  not  endure  it,  so  she  rushes  to  a  law- 
yer who  immediately  institutes  proceedings;  which  of  itself  does 
not  tend  to  conciliate  either  party.  A  divorce  results  not 
from  any  actual  cruelty  or  oppression,  but  from  some  little  mis- 
understanding, some  little  domestic  storm  which  would  have 
blown  over  but  for  the  existence  of  the  court  money  to  tempt  a 
divorce  lawyer.  If  the  attorney  would  always  sacrifice  his  own 
gain  for  the  welfare  of  the  parties,  and  advise  them  to  delay 
and  yield  differences,  all  might  be  well.  But  human  nature 
cannot  be  changed;  it  must  be  guided  so  as  to  serve  for  the  wel- 
fare of  society  instead  of  against  it.  Take  away,  if  possible, 
each  incentive  which  impels  people  to  act  contrary  to  social 
welfare,  and  replace  it  with  another  which  will  utilize  selfish- 
ness in  the  interests  of  society.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but 
that  the  granting  of  court  money  and  the  consequent  ease  with 
which  divorces  can  be  obtained,  is  responsible  for  the  breaking 
up  of  hundreds  of  homes  which  had  not  outlived  their  useful- 
ness, homes  which,  after  the  little  unpleasantness  was  forgot- 
ten, might  have  been  real  hearthstones  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word. 

But,  it  is  urged,  court  money  is  absolutely  essential  to  secure 
the  proper  protection  of  woman  against  oppression.  If  no  court 
money  were  granted,  she  would  not  be  able  to  secure  counsel, 
and  would  be  absolutely  at  the  mercy  of  her  tyrant  husband, 
who  is  usually  pictured  as  a  drunken  brute  who  misuses  and 
abuses  his  wife  in  every  possible  way.  This  is  by  no  means  a 
typical  case.  As  a  rule,  it  is  people  in  prosperous  circum- 
stances who  are  applicants  for  divorce,  and  the  wife  would  us- 


224     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

ually  have  little  trouble  in  securing  enough  money  to  pay  a 
lawyer's  fee.  On  the  other  hand,  the  court  money  would  be  no 
benefit  to  the  really  misused  wife  of  a  poor  drunkard,  as  the 
husband  would  have  nothing  from  which  the  court  could  collect 
the  fee. 

If  it  is  necessary  to  assist  the  wife  in  any  particular  way, 
then  give  her  the  alimony  and  not  a  lawyer's  fee,  which  inures 
to  the  benefit  of  the  attorney.  If  we  examine  divorce  statistics 
for  the  last  twenty  years,  we  find  a  very  marked  increase  in  the 
number  from  year  to  year,  and  a  very  marked  increase  in  the 
number  granted  for  apparently  trivial  causes.  There  must  be 
some  reason  for  this.  People  are  not  naturally  more  quarrel- 
some and  overbearing  toward  each  other  now  than  formerly.  It 
is  asserted  by  those  who  have  studied  this  question  that  the 
number  of  divorces  increases  in  the  proportion  that  the  means 
of  obtaining  them  are  facilitated.  If  this  is  true,  it  must  be 
evident  to  any  observer  that,  after  due  weight  has  been  given 
to  other  causes,  there  is  at  least  some  relation  between  the  sys- 
tem of  court  money  and  the  divorce  problem  of  to-day. 

F.       THE  FEE-SYSTEM  AND  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION. 

Very  few  people  are  so  ignorant  of  politics  as  not  to  have 
heard,  from  rumor  at  least,  of  public  offices  the  emoluments  of 
which  are  so  great  as  to  enrich  the  occupant  in  a  single  year. 
No  public  office  in  the  gift  of  the  people  is  of  such  importance 
as  to  yield  a  regular  legal  salary  of  $100,000,  even  though  it 
required  the  highest  grade  of  ability  which  the  country  can 
furnish.  This  amount  has  been  received  more  than  once,  how- 
ever, by  officers  whose  duties  and  abilities  were  of  a  compara- 
tively low  order.  The  position  of  sheriff'  in  a  densely  populated 
county,  or  that  of  recorder  or  collector,  are  offices  which  do  not 
require  a  very  high  grade  of  attainments ;  and  yet  these  purely 
clerical  officers  have  often  been  paid  a  higher  salary  than  the 
President  of  the  United  States.1     Some  of  these  are  reported  to 

JThe  legislative  commission  investigating  state  expenses  in  Connecticut 
makes  public  the  statement  that  for  the  year  ending  July  1,  1897,  the 
clerk  of  the  superior  court  of  New  Haven  county  received  $9,690  in  fees, 
over  all  expenses  of  office  including  assistant  clerks.     Senator   Converse 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  225 

yield  fabulous  sums;  *  yet  no  actual  facts  can  be  ascertained  as 
to  the  real  value  of  such  offices,  as  they  are  usually  kept  a  close 
secret  among  a  favored  few  of  the  leading  politicians  of  either 
party.  Very  often  no  account  of  the  receipts  of  office  is  re- 
quired by  law;  hence  none  is  given. 

These  positions  are  usually  the  goal  of  the  ambition  of  every 
politician.  There  is,  therefore,  the  most  intense  competition, 
not  only  within  the  political  parties  for  obtaining  the  nomina- 
tions, but  among  the  people  to  secure  election  when  once  nomi- 
nated. These  lucrative  offices  furnish  the  life-blood  of  the 
spoils-system  and  the  political  machine.  The  manipulators  of 
the  machine,  knowing  the  value  of  such  an  office,  can  levy  higher 
assessments  for  the  corruption  fund  the  greater  the  amount  re- 
ceived from  the  office.  Especially  is  this  the  case  where  a  polit- 
ical party  practically  controls  the  election.  It  does  not  require 
any  great  power  of  observation  to  see  that  in  all  local  or  state 
elections,  the  heaviest  pressure  is,  as  a  rule,  brought  to  bear 
on  those  particular  offices  in  which  the  remuneration  is  wholly 
or  partly  paid  in  fees  or  other  perquisites.  It  is  the  office  of 
county  sheriff  in  most  places  which  is  the  center  of  the  political 
whirlpool.  In  many  Eastern  cities  the  office  of  prothonotary, 
clerk  of  court,  or  recorder  is  the  most  powerful  incentive  to 
political  activity.2  The  political  forces  which  are  set  in  motion 
to  obtain    these    lucrative    positions,  are    almost    incredible   in 

estimates  the  net  annual  returns  of  the  office  to  be  $9,800,  which  is  almost 
double  the  pay  of  the  chief  justice  of  the  state  and  about  two  and  one-half 
times  the  pay  of  the  judge  of  the  court  in  which  the  above  named  clerk 
belongs.— New  York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  15,  1898. 

1  The  income  of  the  city  clerk  of  Chicago  asserted  to  be  $49,000  for  two 
years.— Chicago  Times-Herald,  Jan.  16,  1896,  p.  1.  The  Chicago  re- 
corder's income  was  estimated  by  an  investigating  committee  to  have  been 
nearly  $9,000  for  six  months.—  Ibid.,  Dec.  7*,  1896,  p.  7.  The  position  of 
county  sheriff  in  many  counties  in  Wisconsin  is  said  to  yield  as  much  as 
$20,000  a  year.  Many  county  clerks  earn  over  $5,000  a  year  in  fees. 
Newspaper  reports  are  current  that  the  collector  of  taxes  under  Governor 
Warmouth  at  New  Orleans  received  as  fees  not  less  than  $100, 000  a  year 
for  four  years. 

2  A  prominent  New  York  attorney  has  furnished  the  following  estimates 

which  are  said  to  be  conservative:    The  position  of  sheriff  of  New  York 

•county  used  to  yield  $125,000;  at  present  it  yields  about  $25,000.    The 
15 


226     Urdahl—Tke  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

power  and  magnitude.  Each  candidate  has  a  whole  army  of 
henchmen  in  the  field,  each  of  these  demanding  pay  either  by 
some  position  or  by  money.  How  is  all  this  possible?  Most  of 
these  positions  have  no  great  amount  of  honor  connected  with 
them  or  even  of  influence,  except  so  far  as  the  subordinate  ap- 
pointments are  concerned.  The  mainspring  which  furnishes  the 
power  for  all  this  political  machinery,  lies  in  the  amount  of 
salary  which  the  fees  yield  to  the  officer.  He  can  afford  to 
spend  $50,000  in  money  and  a  year  or  two  of  his  time,  to  obtain 
an  office  that  will  yield  $100,000  a  year  in  revenue.1  A  man 
can  afford  to  contribute  liberally  to  the  party  fund  who  can 
realize  such  a  sum  if  his  party  succeeds.2  Political  office  is  not 
the  greatest  incentive  or  stimulus  which  he  has.  More  is  at 
stake.  The  candidate  has  usually  invested  his  entire  fortune  on 
the  issue,  often  also  as  much  as  he  can  borrow  from  his  friends.8 
Is  it  any  wonder  that  he  strains  every  nerve  to  win?  Is  it  sur- 
prising that  no  stone  is  left  unturned  which  will  aid  his  elec- 
tion? Success  means  not  only  a  position  for  a  year  or  two,  but 
it  means  comparative  wealth  and  prosperity  affecting  his  entire 
career,  and  opens  the  door  to  future  advancement.  It  is  almost 
in  the  nature  of  a  wager  in  which  everything  is  at  stake.  Un- 
der such  conditions  more  or  less  corruption  is  inevitable;  and 
the  worst  of  it  is,  that  the  people  themselves  pay  the  fees  which 
constitute  the  corruption  fund.  The  history  of  any  of  our  large 
cities  will  furnish  numerous  examples,  and  there  is  scarcely  a 
county  in  the  older  states  in  which  the  same  spectacle  has  not 
been  witnessed  over  and  over  again.* 

position  of  county  clerk  in  New  York  city  used  to  yield  from  §80,000  to 
$100,000;  at  present  it  is  considered  to  be  worth  $25,000.  The  office  of 
register  of  deeds  is  at  present  worth  about  $20,000. 

1  Several  New  York  and  Philadelphia  fee-paid  positions  were  for  many 
years  said  to  yield  from  $50,000  to  $100,000  a  year. —  Estimates  by  reliable 
men. 

2  Conservative  estimates  by  citizens  of  Minneapolis,  for  several  counties 
in  Minnesota,  disclose  the  fact  that  over  one-half  of  the  salary  of  the  sher- 
iff must  be  spent  to  obtain  election. 

3  Cases  are  not  rare  where  the  candidate  mortgages  his  home  and  prop- 
erty to  raise  campaign  funds. 

4  In  New  York  and  other  states  where  a  partial  reform  of  the  fee-system 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  227 

That  many  of  these  fee-paid  offices  yield  more  than  legitimate 
salaries  can  not  be  questioned.  How  much  more,  no  one  knows. 
These  high  rewards  do  not,  however,  attract  better  and  more  ef- 
ficient men.  In  fact  the  opposite  is  very  often  the  case.  The 
man  who  can  obtain  such  a  position  must  be  a  politician,  the 
more  unscrupulous  and  skilful  the  more  likely  is  he  to  obtain  it. 
None  but  a  politician  who  has  had  experience  in  manipulating 
the  machine  and  knows  how  far  corruption  money  will  go,  would 
dare  to  take  the  enormous  chances  of  losing  which  are  involved; 
and  when  he  is  elected,  we  do  not  have  an  efficient  official  but 
a  man  who  is  primarily  interested  in  obtaining  as  much  gain  as 
possible  out  of  what  he  regards  as  a  legitimate  enterprise.  The 
high  rewards,  therefore,  instead  of  drawing  men  of  ability  into 
office,  tend  rather  to  repel  them,  and  to  attract  the  most  unde- 
sirable class  of  office  holders,  namely,  those  most  skilled  in  cor- 
rupting voters;  and  the  enormous  fees  collected  by  them  must 
be  used,  in  part  at  least,  as  a  corruption  fund  to  secure  the 
coveted  position.  But  suppose  the  money  is  not  used  as  an  act- 
ual corruption  fund,  we  find  another  state  of  affairs  which  is  al- 
most as  bad.  The  aspirant  for  the  office  announces  himself  a 
candidate  almost  a  year  before  the  election,  sometimes  much 
earlier,  and  then  spends  all  his  time,  and  often  employs  his  friends 
also,  to  secure  delegations  instructed  for  him  from  the  various 
primaries.  When  at  last  he  succeeds  in  becoming  the  nominee 
of  his  party,  only  half  the  battle  is  won.  He  must  now  spend 
all  the  rest  of  his  time  in  campaigning  so  as  to  secure  votes 
enough  to  elect.  There  is,  therefore,  a  double  opportunity  for 
using  corruption  methods. 

An  official  who  has  obtained  his  position  by  using  more  or  less 
questionable  means,  is  not  going  to  turn  over  a  new  leaf  and 
become  a  model  of  honesty  as  soon  as  he  gets  into  office.  Over- 
charges, favoritism,  and  frauds  of  various  kinds,  are  extremely 
likely  to  be   the  order  of   the  day.1     Reports   of   investigation 

has  been  introduced,  the  testimony  of  men  in  position  to  know  the  facts 
is,  that  the  campaign  expenses  and  the  intensity  of  the  political  struggle 
for  office  have  been  reduced  by  one-half  after  the  new  system  was  put  in 
operation. 

1  Reports  of  the  Investigating  Committee  of  the  city  recorder's  office  of 
Chicago.—  Chicago  Times-Herald,  Dec.  23,  1896,  p.  1;  also  other  papers. 


■ 

228     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

committees  in  the  large  towns  illustrate  this  very  well,  while 
much  of  the  fraud  in  the  office  is  so  easily  and  skillfully  con- 
cealed that  it  is  never  found  out.  This  is  accomplished  all  the 
more  easily  where  no  account  of  any  kind  is  required  of  the  fees 
of  office  received  by  an  official. 

But  the  tendency  has  been  to  demand  an  account  from  every 
officer  who  collects  fees,  and  to  fix  a  maximum  limit  to  the 
amount  which  may  be  kept  as  salary  over  and  above  office  ex- 
penses. This,  however,  offers  a  loop-hole  for  almost  as  much 
corruption  as  the  old  system.  The  official  appoints  his  clerks, 
and,  as  a  rule,  is  responsible  to  no  one  for  their  number  and 
character.  He  employs  several  times  the  number  of  clerks 
actually  needed  to  do  the  work,  some  of  them  holding  several 
positions  in  as  many  distinct  capacities,  in  order  to  draw  double 
or  quadruple  salary.  Sometimes  the  officer  himself  holds  sev- 
eral minor  positions  besides  his  regular  office.  In  other  words, 
the  provision  allowing  an  official  to  pay  his  office  expenses  out 
of  the  fees  collected,  furnishes  an  opportunity  for  enormous 
frauds.  The  office  expenses  often  more  than  swallow  up  all  the 
fees  collected. 

The  only  remedy  is  to  enforce  the  most  rigid  system  of  ac- 
countability, so  that  every  fee  collected  is  paid  into  the  treas- 
ure'. It  is  bad  business  management  to  allow  an  official  to  pay 
and  appoint  his  own  clerks.  No  private  enterprise  could  exist 
for  any  length  of  time  which  employed  such  methods.  A  pri- 
vate establishment  always  pays  its  subordinates  from  the  gen- 
eral treasury,  and  keeps  a  sharp  watch  over  their  salaries  and 
efficiency.  The  same  economy  must  be  applied  to  public  affairs 
if  they  are  to  be  well  administered.  All  the  corruption  is  not, 
as  a  rule,  caused  by  bad  legislation;  the  laws  creating  the  var- 
ious offices  and  making  provisions  for  their  emoluments,  were 
legitimate  and  proper  at  the  time  when  they  were  enacted.  But 
most  of  them  were  enacted  very  early  in  the  history  of  the 
country,  and  few,  if  any,  radical  changes  have  been  made  in 
them.  But  they  have  simply  outlived  their  period  of  useful- 
ness. Economic  conditions  have  changed,  while  the  laws  have 
not  been  changed  to  fit  them.  The  fee-bill  which  would  yield 
barely  enough  revenue  to  support  the  sheriff  of  New  York  in 


The  Fee  System  as  a  Social  Force.  229 

1840,  would,  if  in  force  in  1890,  produce  a  fortune  in  a  single 
year.  Why  ?  Simply  because  the  business  of  the  office  has  in- 
creased enormously  on  account  of  the  growth  of  population. 
Furthermore,  the  work  can  be  done  at  a  much  lower  cost.  It  is 
like  production  on  a  large  scale,  in  that  economies  of  various 
kinds  can  be  practiced. 

The  question  immediately  arises :  Why  have  the  legislatures 
so  often  failed  to  adjust  law  to  economic  conditions  in  this  par- 
ticular more  than  in  others?  The  answer  is  evident.  Which- 
ever political  party  happens  to  be  in  power  is  directly  inter- 
ested in  having  as  many  lucrative  offices  to  confer  as  possible. 
A  party  is  not  likely  to  diminish  the  emoluments  of  an  office 
when,  by  so  doing,  it  diminishes  to  just  that  extent  the  patron- 
age which  it  has  to  confer.  Especially  is  this  the  case  where 
no  pressure  in  that  direction  is  brought  to  bear  upon  the  legis- 
lative body.  There  is  likely  to  be  no  pressure  of  this  kind  for 
the  diminution  of  the  fees  of  an  office  or  a  change  in  the  system, 
because  no  body  of  individuals,  as  a  class,  is  likely  to  be  espe- 
cially affected  or  feel  the  burden  of  the  system.  The  fees  are 
paid  intermittently,  now  by  one  person  and  now  by  another; 
while  the  great  majority  of  people  rarely  have  any  fees  to  pay 
at  all.  There  has  thus  never  arisen  any  popular  demand  for  the 
publication  of  the  amount  of  fees  collected  or  for  their  reduction. 
As  a  result,  we  find  that  it  is  only  at  this  late  day  that  the 
same  requirements  are  beginning  to  be  made  in  regard  to  fees 
as  were  introduced  in  regard  to  taxes  one  hundred  years  ago; 
namely,  that  their  amount  should  be  made  public,  and  that  all 
fees  collected  should  be  accounted  for.  This  lack  of  knowledge 
of  the  number  of  fees  collected  has  tended  still  further  to  dis- 
courage any  agitation  for  their  reduction.  But  whenever  a 
movement  of  this  kind  is  started,  then  all  the  fee-collecting 
officers,  with  all  the  political  influence  which  they  can  command, 
stand  ready  to  work  against  it.1       It  is  not  strange,  therefore, 

1  A  bill  to  abolish  some  minor  sheriffs'  fees  in  the  Wisconsin  Legislature 
in  1896  was  defeated  through  the  lobbying  of  the  sheriffs  and  their  friends. 
Numerous  similar  bills  have  met  the  same  fate.  It  is  a  notorious  fact, 
well  known  to  all  who  are  familiar  with  New  York  politics,  that  the  recent 


230     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the   United  States. 

when  everything  is  taken  into  consideration,  that  primitive 
laws  have  so  long  remained  in  force,  and  that  they  are  even 
now  with  difficulty  being  displaced  by  more  modern  and  suitable 
enactments.  The  movement  seems  to  be  in  progress  which  ap- 
pears destined  to  place  every  fee-paid  public  officer  on  a  salary 
or  what  is  equivalent  to  the  same.  This,  together  with  civil 
service  reform,  will  ultimately  remove  the  greater  part  of  the 
political  corruption  connected  with  purely  administrative 
offices.  But  from  the  very  nature  of  American  conditions,  the 
movement  must  be  slow  and  gradual. 

A  sudden  change  from  fees  to  salaries  will  not  do  away  with 
all  the  corruption  at  once.  When  the  change  is  made,  the  sal- 
aries are  at  times  likely  to  be  left  so  high  as  to  become  almost 
as  great  an  incentive  to  corruption  as  when  the  office  was  paid 
by  fees.1  Oftentimes,  too,  some  flaw  or  inaccuracy  in  a  law 
offers  an  opportunity  for  obtaining  extras,  of  which  the  official 
is  not  slow  to  avail  himself.  All  the  reforms  of  the  evils  con- 
nected with  the  fee-system  can  be  most  easily  accomplished  through 
legislation.  It  is  the  legislator's  duty  to  provide  laws  which 
make  the  environment  of  the  official  such  that  honesty  will  be 
the  best  policy,  laws  which  will  take  away  the  incentive  to  cor- 
ruption and  make  it  more  profitable  to  do  right  than  to  do  wrong. 
Such  laws  cannot  be  struck  off  at  any  fixed  time  by  the  hand 
and  brain  of  man. 

A  careful  study  of  the  conditions  and  question  involved, 
utilization  of  the  results  of  legislative  experiments  in  other 
states,  and  a  gradual  improvement  of  the  parts  wherein  a  law  is 
found  defective,  are  the  elements  required  to  accomplish  such  a 
task. 

Madison,   Wis.,  July,  1898. 

amendment  to  the  New  York  fee  code  failed  to  pass  because  of  the  opposi- 
tion of  sheriffs  and  other  fee-paid  officials,  whose  salaries  would  have  been 
affected  thereby. 

1  Many  of  the  salaries  of  county  officers  in  Pennsylvania  range  from  $8,000 
to  $15,000. 


Statistics. 


231 


Table  I. —  License,  Examination,  and  Inspection  Fees  in  the  United 
States.    (Compiled  from  state  statutes.) 

*  According  to  size  of  the  city ;  f  according  to  amount  of  sales ;  t  according  to  amount 
of  capital  employed;  a,  each  performance;  b,  per  quarter;  c,  according  to  seating 
capacity  ;  R,  regulated  by  municipalities. 


License  Fees. 

Mar 

riage 

Retail 
liquor, 
state. 

Whole- 
sale 
liquor, 
state . 

Whole- 
sale 
liquor, 
county 

Retail 
liquor, 
county . 

Beer. 

Brew- 
ers. 

Dis- 
tillers'. 

Ped- 
dlers on 
foot. 

$1  50 
2  00 

1  25 

2  00 
1  50 

1  00 

3  00 

2  00 

$125-3O0f 

200 

500 

60-480f 

R 

$200 
120-500f 
50 

$32-75 

$40^166} 

$200 
40-160f 

$60 

$100 

60 

R 

200 

250-450 

1  to  100R 

25 

400 

25 

100—200 

500 
250-350 

50 

100 

5 

25 

50 

1  00 

1  00 

2  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1  50 

75 
1  00 
1  00 

120 

500 

150 

100 

150 

R 

5—20$ 
10 

Kentucky  

75 

50 

20 

5 

50—75 

Maryland 

18—150 

100 

Michigan 

50 
200 

a  oo 

1  00 

2  00 

1  50 

2  00 
1  00 

300 

500—1000* 

600—1200* 

50—400* 

100-500* 

500—1000* 

500 

200 

500 

15 

25—100 

Mississippi 

500—800 

6 

90-600f 

600 

50 

30 

120-300f 
50 

New  Hampshire 
New  Jersey 

100-250 

30 

50 

200 

100 

20 

1  00 
75 

1  00 
1  00 

1  00 

"i'66 

1  00 
1  50 

15 

Ohio 

R 

72 

100 

10—200 

300—1000* 

200-400* 
75-175* 

80 
150-200 
150-200* 

366-1066* 
500-1000 

50 

8 

10—200 

25 

250 

200 
50 

5—150 

450 

450 

Utah 

15 

2  00 

1  00 

75 

2  00 

100-1,000 
100-350 

200 

150 

100 

100 

West  Virginia. 

150 

50 

10—50 

20 

10-100 

232       Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


Table  I,  continued. —  License,  Examination,  and  Inspection  Fees  in 
the   United  States.     (Compiled  from  state  statutes.) 


License  Fees. 

Ped- 
dlers 
on 
horse . 

Ped- 
dlers 
with 
two 
horses. 

Pawn- 
brok- 
ers. 

Ferry . 

Auc- 
tion- 
eers. 

Bil- 
liard 
tables. 

Shows. 

$50--100* 
25b 
100 

400-600c 

Circus. 

$50 
120 

$25 
8 

20 

$120 

$50 

$1-100 

$20 

$100 

180 

120 
R 

2R 

1-100R 
10 

R 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

240 

R 

5-20 
75 

100 

Florida 

15 
25 
60 

10 

120 

R 

5-10a 
3a 

R 

5-25 
100 

200 
R 

5-300 

3—50 

R 

10-500 

10 

R 

5-20 

25 

5— 25a 

R 

50 

30 

10 
10 
50 
2 
R 

2 

40 
10 

50 
30 

100 

20 
175-400C 

50 

30—500 

R 

2 

150 

.200 

30 

30 

2 

R 

2 
R 

R 

40 

75 

20 
80 

40 
120 

'"200 

1 

"2—566 

10-75 
5-400f 

20 
30 

75b 

250a 

400 

20 
10 

75 
l-300a 
10— 200a 

20 

37 

50-150 

R 

500 

North  Carolina 

25 

20 

40 
25 

Ohio 

R 

2-50 

500 
10-500 

R 

50 
30-100 

R 

R 

Pennsylvania 

16 

25 

50—500 

500 

200 

5—75 

10-50 

5-200 

5—280 

Texas   

Utah 

30 

1-150 

300—1000 

1-100 

25 
5 

25 
75 

100 

50 

30 

50 

100 

1-100 

50 

10—500 

Statistics. 


233 


Table  I,  continued. —  License,  Examination,  and  Inspection  Fees  in 
the  United  States.    (Compiled  from  state  statutes.) 


Examination  Fee. 

Medi- 
cine. 

Phar- 
macy. 

Den- 
tistry. 

Teach- 
ers. 

Engi- 
neer, 
first 
grade. 

Engi- 
neer, 
second 
grade. 

Pilots. 

Attor- 
neys. 

$5 

$6 
25 
5 
11 
10 

25 

1 

$1 

$20 

$10 

$6 

6 

2 

$50 

7 

5 
5 
3 
15 

10 

6H 

5'" 

8 

5y2 

$20' 

12 

10 
10 
10 
15 

22 
25 
12 

10 
20 

10 

Florida 

1 

Georgia 

5 
R 

3 
R 

3 

5H 
2 
13 
5 

1 
5 

3 

1 
1 

5 

2 

10 
10 

5 

21 

5% 

2 

2 

10 

11 

10 

1 

20 
10 

10 

5 

25 

30 

5 

7 
5 
4 

7" 

1 

1 

15 

Minnesota 

10 
10-25 

1 
20 

5 

1 

Mississippi 

20 

Montana 

7% 

5 

25 

Nevada  

5 

New  Jersey 

26 
10 

lttpct 

N  ew  York 

10- 

North  Corolina 

10 

5 

8 
3 
6 

10 

10 

5 

R 

5 

10 

'""d" 

25 
5 

27 
15 

5"* 

5H 

N  orth  Dakota , 

1 

Ohio 

D 
10 
15 

Oregon 

2*4 

25 
1  p  ct 

Bhode  Island 

South  Carolina 

10 

5 

South  Dakota 

1 

Tennessee 

11 

15 

Texas 

£ 

Utah 

5 

5H 

Virginia 

Washington 

West  Virginia 

10 

7 
7 

2 

5 
25 

1 

1 

2 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

2Bi     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


Table  I,  continued. — License,  Examination  and  Inspection  Fees  in 
the   United  States.    (Compiled  from  state  statutes.) 


Inspection  Fees. 

Oil. 

Beef 
and  pork. 

Fish. 

Land 
fertilizers. 

Boilers, 
steam- 
boats, 
etc. 

lc  per  gal. 

25c  per  bbl. 

$15 

$10 
5 

R 

20c  bbl. 

10 
30 

5 

J4  to  lc  per  gal. 
K  to  lc  per  gal. 

25 

15 

25 
2 

6—10 

40c  for  3  bbl. 
10c  per  bbl. 

35c 

R 

10-40 
5-7 

20 
5 

15 

15—30 

7c 

20 

5 

5 

R 
R 

R 
R 

16 
15-40 

3—10 

m 

12 
20 

10-40 

Ohio  .. 

15-40 
10 

10 

8 

6 

$1  per  hr. 

10 
25 

50c 

Utah... 

10 

Statistics. 


235 


Table  II. — Showing  Fees  for  Corporations,  Banks,  Insurance  Com- 
panies, etc.,  in  the  United  States. 


Filing 
articles 
of  incor- 
poration. 

Filing 
art'cles 
of  in- 
corpo- 
ration, 
chari- 
table. 

Filing 
articles 
of  incor- 
poration, 
foreign. 

Re- 
cord- 
ing 
charter 
l 

Certi- 
ficates 
(issue). 

Increase 

of 
stock.3 

De- 
crease 

of 
stock. 

Certif- 
icate 
not  to 
exceed 
$10,000, 

$5 
25 
80 
10 

100-5,000 

30—50 

100 

50 

12 

25 
25 
10 
55 
30 

$2 
19 

$3 

mi 

WA 

"'"$2^ 

$15 
10 

100-5,000 
50 

Colorado 

1 

20c 

15c 

1-5  per  c  t 

100-5,000 

$10 

Florida  .     . 

Illinois 

5tf 

5 

25 

IK 

10c 
15c 

i" 

1 

1 
1-10  pr  ct 

1 

55 
10 

5 

Kentucky  

30 

m 

10 
30 
1-20  pr  ct 
V*  per  ct 

25 
5 

50 

50 
5 



10 

200 
10 
Y%  per  ct 

20c 

25 

1-20  pr  ct 

5 

Mississippi 

50c 

50c 
25c 

8 

8 

2 

5 

15 

7* 

5 

5 

20 

5 
10 

39 

6 

...... 

35 

15c 

2 
2 

Ohio 

17-52 

20c 
134 

5 

5 

5 

10 

Pennsylvania 

5 

6 
10 

6 
25 

25 

1 
3 

10 

20c 

10 

H,  per  ct 

25 

Utah   . 

5 

Washington 

West  Virgiana 

5 
10 

10-25 
3 

15c 

5 
2 

5 

20c 
25 

50 

3 

i  c,  cents  per  folio. 
3  Per  cent  of  stock. 


236     Urdahl — The  Present  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


Table  II,   continued.— Showing   Fees  for   Corporations,  Bank,  In- 
surance  Companies,  etc.,  in  the  United  States. 


Certifi- 
cate not 
to  exceed 
$50,000. 

Certifi- 
catenot 
to  exceed 
$100,000. 

Certifi- 
cate not 
to  exceed 
$250,000. 

Certifi- 
cate not 
to  exceed 
$500,000. 

Certifi- 
cate not 
to  exceed 
$1,000,000 

Rail- 
road, i 

Banking* 

$25 

$50 

$75 

$100 

$200 

$50-200 

10 

17  K 

40 

riH 

152K 

100 

$50 

95 
15 

145 

20 

295 
35 

535 

60 

1,035 
110 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

50 

100 

300 

50 

100 

150 

275 

525 

50 

100 

150 

275 

525 

1  pr  ct 

Vi  pr  ct 

1-20  p  ct 

1-10  p  ct 

25 

50 

100 

200 

25 
50 

1-  20  p  ct 

North  Dakota 

Ohio 

50 
50 

100 
100 

150 
250 

275 
500 

525 
1,000 

100 

250 

500 

100 

100 
100 

25 

50 

100 

200 

100 

Utah 

2  pr  ct. 

i  Ibid. ;  same  fee  as  for  other  corporations. 


Statistics. 


23; 


Table  II,   continued.  —  Showing  Fees  for  Corporations,  Banks,  In- 
surance Companies,  etc.,  in  the  United  States. 


Tele- 
graph. 

E        J  Build- 
nrpss    i^and 
press'  1  loan. 

Filing 
articles 
of  incor- 
poration. 
—Insur- 
ance. 

Fire. 

Life.i 

Mu- 
tual. 

For- 
eign. 

$100 

Annual 
state- 
ment.3 

Alabama 

$100 

$25 

1  pr  ct.  of 

prem.  R 

$50-200 



15 

30 
50 

10 
10 

3  pr  ct. 

$20 
20 

California 

Colorado 

$50 

50 



3  pr  ct. 

25 

10  R 

10 

Delaware 

2  p  ct. 

5 

Georgia 

100 

$100 

m 

50 

Ibid 
12 
10 

55 

30 

50 

$50 

$50 

50 

50 

2* 
15 
26 

.01  p  ct. 

of  risk. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Indiana 

25 
25 

100 

10 

5 
20  R 

50 

10 
55 
30 

25 
55 

30 

Kentucky 

25 

Maryland 

300 

300 

30 

200 

25 

2  pr  ct. 

1  pr  ct. 

25 
3 

20 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

5 

30 

50 

50 

20 

New  Hampshire 

50 

50 

50 

50 

25 
20 

15 

20 
25 

50 

50 

20 

5 

1-50  pc. 

Ohio 

10 

25 
25 

25 
100 

20 

50 

100 

Pennsylvania. .. 

25 

20 
20 

50 
5—100 

20 

20 

5 

25 

2 

Texas  

100 

25 

20 

Utah    

5 

10 

2  pr  ct. 

5 

West  Virginia  .. 

10 

10 

25 

10 

50 

50 
50 

100 
100 

30 

Wyoming 

i  Per  cent,  of  premiums. 


3  R,  Retaliatory  legislation. 


238  Urdahl — The  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Altgeld  (J.  P.).     Inaugural  Address,  1893.     Springfield,  111. 
Altgeld  (J.  P.).     Live  Questions;     Our    Penal   Machinery   and 

its  Victims.     Chicago,  1886. 
Ashley  (William  J.).     Economic  History  of  England.     London, 

1888-1893.     2  vols. 
Bastable  (C.  F.).     Public  Finance.     London,  1892. 
Besobrasoff  (W.).     Impots  sur  les  Actes.     Memoires   de  l'Aca- 

demie  de  St.  Petersbourg,  1866,  1867. 
Black  (J.  W.).     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Vol.  10,  No.  7.     Balti- 
more,  1892. 
Block  (Maurice).     Dictionnaire  de  L'Adminstration  Francaise. 

Paris,  1891,     3d  ed. 
Boeckh  (A.)     Public  Economy  of  Athens.    London,  1842.    2d  ed. 
Boone  (R.  G.).     Education  in  the  United   States:     Its  History 

from  the  Earliest  Settlements.     New  York,  1894. 
Bruce  (Philip  A.).     Economic  History  of  Virginia  in  the  Seven. 

teenth  Century.     New  York,  1896.     2  vols. 
Brunner(H.).     Deutsche  Rechtsgeschichte.    Leipzig,  1887-1892. 
Buxton    (Sidney  C).     Finance   and   Politics,  1783-1885.     Lon- 
don, 1888.     2  vols. 
Cheruel  (A.).     Dictionaire  Historique  des  Institutions.       Paris, 

1874.     4th  ed.,  2  vols. 
Chicago  Times-Herald,  1896. 
Werner  (Edgar  A.).       Civil  List  and  Constitutional  History  of 

the  Colony  and  State  of  New  York.     Albany,    1887,    1888. 
Clamageran  (Jean  J.).       Histoire  de  l'lmpot  en  France.     Paris, 

1867.     3  vols. 
Cohn  (Gustav).       System   der    Finanzwissenschaft.     Stuttgart, 

1889. 
Constitutions,  Colonial  Charters,  and  Other  Organic  Laws  of  the 

United  States.     Compiled  by  Ben.  Perley  Poore.     2  parts. 

Washington,  1877. 


Bibliography.  239 

Consular  Reports,  1895.  Vagrancy  and  Public  Charities  in 
Foreign  Countries.   Bureau  of  Statistics.   Washington,  1893. 

Cooley  (Thomas  M.).  Treatise  on  the  Constitutional  Limita- 
tions.    Boston,  1883,  5th  ed. 

Cossa  (Luigi).  Taxation :  its  Principles  and  Methods.  (Trans- 
lation.)    New  York,  1891. 

Dinwiddie  (Robert).  Official  Records,  2  vols.  (In  the  Vir- 
ginia Historical  Society  Collections). 

Douglas  (H.  J.).  The  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts  from 
the  Organization  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony  to  the 
American  Revolution.  Columbia  College  Studies,  Vol  If 
No.  4.     New  York. 

Dowell  (Stephen).  History  of  Taxation  and  Taxes  in  England. 
London,  1884,  4  vols. 

Ely  (Richard  T.).  Taxation  in  American  States  and  Cities. 
New  York,  1888. 

Federal  Government  Reports;  including  the  Reports  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  and  the  Attorney  General's  Special 
Report  for  1896-7. 

Hall  (Hubert).  History  of  the  Customs  Revenue  in  England 
from  earliest  times  to  the  year  1827.     London,  1885.     2  vols. 

Handworterbuch  der  Staatswissenschaften  (edited  by  J.  Conrad, 
W.  Lexis,  and  others).     Jena,  1890.     6  vols. 

Heckel  (Max  von).  "Gebiihren:"  Handworterbuch  der  Staats- 
wissenschaften,  Vol.  I. 

Hock  (Carl  Ritter  von).  Die  Finanzverwaltung  Frankreichs. 
Stuttgart  und  Augsburg,  1857. 

Humbert  (G.  A.).  Essai  sur  les  Finances  chez  les  Romains. 
Paris,  1886.     2  vols. 

Ingle  (Edward).  Parish  Institutions  in  Maryland.  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  Studies,  Vol.  I,  No.  6.  Baltimore,  1883. 
v'Jones  (F.  R.).  History  of  Taxation  in  Connecticut,  1736-1776.. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Vol.  14,  No.  8.  Balti- 
more, 1896. 

Laboulaye  (Edouard).  Essai  sur  les  Lois  criminelles  des  Romains. 
Paris,  1845. 

Laspeyres  (E.).  "Staatswirthschaft:"  Deutsches  Staats-worter- 
buch  (edited  by  J.  C.  Bluntschli  und  K.  Brater).  Stuttgart 
und  Leipzig,  1862.     Vol.  10,  p.   95. 


240  Urdahl — The  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

Lehr  (J.).     Article    on    Registration   Fees    in  Handwbrterbuch 

der  Staatswissenschaften,  Vol.  V,  p.  376. 
Leon   Say   (J.    B.).     Dictionnarie   des    Finances.     Paris,  1889. 

2  vols. 
Leroy-Beaulieu    (Paul).     Traite    de    la    Science    des    Finances. 
Paris,  1892.     2  vols.,  4th  ed. 
S  Xiicense  Law  of  Massachusetts  (by  M.  L.  V.).     Reprint  from  the 
Boston  Courier,  1832.     Boston,  1833. 
McMahon  (John  Van  Lear).     Historical  Views    of   the   Govern- 
ment of   Maryland  from  the    Colonization    to   the   Present 
Day.     Baltimore,   1831. 
Meier-Schonmann.   Der  Attischer  Process.    Berlin,  1883.    2  vols. 
Mommsen  (C.  M.  F.).     Romsches  Staatsrecht.     Leipzig,   1871- 
1888.     3  vols. 
v/  Moore  (J.  W.).     History  of  North  Carolina  to  the  Present  Time. 
Raleigh,  1880.     2  vols. 
Municipal    reports,  comprising  reports  of   city  treasurers    and 

comptrollers  for  cities  of  over  75,000  inabitants. 
Neumann  (F.  J.).     Das  offentliche  Interesse  mit  Bezug   auf   das 
Gebiihren  und  Steuer-Wesen.     Annalen  des  Deutschen  Rei- 
ches,  (edited  by  Georg  Hirth  and  M.  Seydel),  1886. 
New  Plymouth ;  Compact  with  Charter  and  Laws.     Compiled  by 

Wm.  Brigham.     Boston,  1836. 
Parien  (Esquiron  de).     Traite  des  Impots.     Paris,  1888.     4  vols., 

4th  ed. 
Patten  (S.  N.).     Theory  of  Dynamic  Economics.     Philadelphia, 

1892. 
Pennsylvania   Archives.       (Selected    and   arranged   by   Samuel 

Hazard).     Philadelphia,    1854. 
Pfeiffer  (Edward).     Die  Staatseinnahmen.     Stuttgart  and  Leip- 
zig, 1866. 
Rau  (K.   H.)      Grundsatze   der  Finanzwissenschaft.      1864,   5th 

ed. 
Reports  of  secretaries  of  state,  state  auditors,  state  comptrollers, 
and  state  treasurers  for  fiscal  year  1896-97. 
^  Ripley  (W.    Z.).     Financial    History    of    Virginia,     1609-1776. 
Columbia  College  Studies,  Vol.  4,  No.  1.     New  York,  1893. 


Bibliography.  241 

Rhodes  (J.  F.).  History  of  the  United  States  from  the  Com- 
promise of  1850.     New  York,   1893.     Vol.  2. 

Roberts  (E.  H.).  The  Planting  and  Growth  of  the  Empire 
State  (New  York. )  American  Commonwealth  Series.  Bos- 
ton, 1887.     2  vols. 

Roscher  (Wilhelm).  System  der  Finanzwissenschaft.  Stutt- 
gart, 1889. 

Rosewater  (Victor).       Special  Assessments;  a  Study  in  Munici- 
"pal  Finance.     Columbia  College   Studies   in    History,   Eco- 
nomics,   and    Public  Law.      New   York,   1892-93.     Vol.    2, 
No.  3. 

Schaffle  (Albert).  Grundsatze  der  Steuerpolitik.  Tubingen, 
1880. 

Schonberg  (Gustav).  Handbuch  der  Politischen  Oekonomie. 
Tubingen,   1890.      2  vols. 

Seligman  (E.  R.  A.).     Essays  in  taxation.      New  York,  1895. 

Seyffert  (Oakar).      Dictionary  of  Classical  Antiquities.    1891. 

Smith  (Adam).  Wealth  of  Nations.  With  notes  by  J.  R. 
M'Culloch.      London,  New  York. 

Sohm  (Rudolph).  Die  altdeutsche  Reichs-und  Gerichtsverfas- 
sung.     Weimar,  1871.     Vol.  I. 

Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  Kingdom.      1893. 

Statutes  aud  Session  laws;  including  Colonial,  State,  and  Fed- 
eral legislation  from  the  colonial  period  down  to  1896. 

Stein  (Laurenz  von).  Lehrbuch  der  Finanzwissenschaft.  1886. 
5th  ed. 

Stourm  (Rene).  Les  Finances  de  TAncien  Regime  et  de  la 
Revolution.  Origines  du  Systeme  Financier  Actuel.  Paris, 
1885.      2  vols. 

Umpfenbach  (Karl).  Lehrbuch  der  Finanzwissenschaft.  Stutt- 
gart, 1887.     2d  ed. 

Vocke  (Wilhelm).  Abgaben,  Auflagen,  und  die  Steuer.  Stutt- 
gart, 1887. 

Vuitry  (M.  Ad.).  Etudes  sur  le  Regime  Financier  de  la  France 
avant  la  Revolution  de  1789.      Paris,  1883.     2  vols. 

Wagner  (Adolf).      Finanzwissenschaft.      Leipzig,  1889. 

Waitz  (Georg).     Deutsche  Verfassungsgeschichte.     Kiel,  1844 
1873.     8  vols. 
16 


242  Urdahl — Tfie  Fee  System  in  the  United  States. 

Whitney  (Edson  L.).  Government  of  the  Colony  of  South  Car- 
olina. Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies.  Vol.  13.  Nos. 
1  and  2.     Baltimore,  1895. 

Wood  (F.  A.).  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont.  Columbia 
College  Studies  in  Economics,  Political  Science,  and  Public 
Law,  Vol.  IV,  No.  3.      New  York,  1894. 

Worthington  (T.  K.).  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Finances  of 
Pennsylvania.  American  Economic  Association  Publica- 
tions.    Vol.  II,  No.  2.     Baltimore,  1887.   ^^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


14  Aug'53-' 
AUG1  5195310 

JEG&    1955  It 


Art? 


1995 


m 


1 


LD  21-100m-7,'52(A2528sl6)476 


